[Bug 465944] Review Request: perl-Text-SpellChecker - OO interface for spell-checking a block of text
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=465944 --- Comment #6 from Paul Howarth [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 02:32:09 EDT --- Imported and built: Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=867555 F-9: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=867549 F-8: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=867547 EL-5: http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-5-epel/368-perl-Text-SpellChecker-0.03-1.el5/ EL-4: http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-4-epel/367-perl-Text-SpellChecker-0.03-1.el4/ -- Configure 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 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||rg) --- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 03:17:32 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 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 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||) --- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 03:18:30 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 460000] Review Request: rxtx - Parallel communication for the Java Development Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=46 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||rg) --- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 03:18:51 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 452211] Review Request: spu-binutils - Binutils for the SPU on IBM Cell processors
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=452211 Jochen Roth [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? | --- Comment #27 from Jochen Roth [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 04:06:44 EDT --- (In reply to comment #26) Note that all packages will get a F-10 branch when we mass branch for it. You can request one now if you need one to land lots of changes in the rawhide branch for after F-10 release. Do you need a F-10 early branch? Yes, thanks I noticed that but I thought that I have to create an extra request for new packages. In this case I don't need an extra F-10 early branch. 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 460057] Review Request: openlayers - A JavaScript library for displaying map data
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=460057 --- Comment #2 from Balint Cristian [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 04:26:45 EDT --- Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/openlayers.spec SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/openlayers-2.7-1.fc10.src.rpm - Just a newer release. - rpmlint initial tests pass: 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure 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 447456] Review Request: gupnp-tools: a collection of dev tools utilising GUPnP 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=447456 --- Comment #9 from Peter Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 06:32:07 EDT --- Hi Denis, Any chance to retest this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 465740] Review Request: rubygem-gettext - RubyGem of Localization Library and Tools for Ruby
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=465740 --- Comment #11 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 05:23:37 EDT --- cvs done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 423821] Review Request: nagios-plugins-rsync - Nagios plugin to monitor remote rsync servers
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=423821 Jima [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] | |rg) | --- Comment #13 from Jima [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 08:05:36 EDT --- Nah, thanks for the noise. I need to deal with this. I've bumped this package up to 1.02, released January of this year. (Wow.) Obviously, I also included your fix, which kills one of the rpmlint errors. Spec URL: http://beer.tclug.org/jima/fedora/nagios-plugins-rsync/nagios-plugins-rsync.spec SRPM URL: http://beer.tclug.org/jima/fedora/nagios-plugins-rsync/nagios-plugins-rsync-1.02-0.1.fc9.src.rpm This brings rpmlint's output down to: nagios-plugins-rsync.x86_64: W: no-documentation nagios-plugins-rsync.x86_64: E: no-binary nagios-plugins-rsync.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib (ditto on i386) -- Configure 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 457517] Review Request: perl-Padre - Perl Application Development and Refactoring Environment
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=457517 Dan Horák [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 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 #10 from Levente Farkas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 08:23:49 EDT --- so about your requires. it's a good question. if you use such functions from gstreamer-java which requires gstreamer-plugins-base then gstreamer-plugins-base should have to be at least 0.10.19. so your Conflicts: gstreamer-plugins-base 0.10.19 may be better, but i don't know if i not add requires for gstreamer-plugins-base 0.10.19 the one can install gstreamer-java which is not working in some case which is the reason for requires in spec file $(build-classpath swt) working on fedora, but not on rhel/centos-5 that's why i use this way, but now i modify a bit. unfortunately until we've newer jna it can't build:-( http://www.lfarkas.org/linux/packages/fedora/9/SPECS/gstreamer-java.spec http://www.lfarkas.org/linux/packages/fedora/9/SRPMS/gstreamer-java-1.0-0.2.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 465362] Review Request: openconnect -- client for Cisco AnyConnect VPN
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=465362 --- Comment #5 from David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 08:22:53 EDT --- Yes, it works fine then. Thanks. I think it gives me a bunch of permissions I don't need, but certainly works. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 #8 from Sindre Pedersen Bjørdal [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 08:53:36 EDT --- ping again. I really want to get this in F10. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 438608] Review Request: elisa-plugins-good - Good Plugins for the Elisa Media Center
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438608 Bug 438608 depends on bug 457196, which changed state. Bug 457196 Summary: Review Request: pymetar - METAR weather reports parser for Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457196 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457196] Review Request: pymetar - METAR weather reports parser for Python
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=457196 Matthias Saou [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #7 from Matthias Saou [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 06:03:27 EDT --- Rebuilt the the packages a while back, but forgot to close this review. Doing so now. I've now updated to 0.14 too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? | --- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 09:04:45 EDT --- Please wait for my recheck. I have not approved this package yet. (Note: as I have to check 5 requests before this ticket so it may take a little long...) -- Configure 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 465617] Review Request: gromacs3 - 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=465617 --- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 06:45:55 EDT --- Added conflict to module file. gromacs3.x86_64: W: no-documentation gromacs3-bash.x86_64: W: no-documentation gromacs3-bash.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/bash_completion.d/gromacs3 gromacs3-common.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/modulefiles/gromacs3 gromacs3-csh.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized csh GROMACS support gromacs3-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation gromacs3-devel.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gromacs3-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation gromacs3-mpi.x86_64: W: no-documentation gromacs3-mpi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation gromacs3-mpi-devel.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gromacs3-mpi-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation gromacs3-tutor.x86_64: W: no-documentation gromacs3-zsh.x86_64: W: no-documentation gromacs3-zsh.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized zsh GROMACS support 12 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 13 warnings. http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/gromacs3.spec http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/gromacs3-3.3.3-4.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 433398] Review Request: synbak - Synbak Universal Backup System (first package, need sponsor)
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=433398 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 09:10:22 EDT --- Update? -- Configure 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 457917] Review Request: stress - tool to impose stress on a POSIX-compliant operating system
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=457917 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 09:10:33 EDT --- Update? -- Configure 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 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 09:11:06 EDT --- Update? -- Configure 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 452901] Review Request: ocspd - OpenCA OCSP Daemon
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=452901 --- Comment #16 from Patrick Monnerat [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 05:50:21 EDT --- Obsoletes/Provides is required in case someone installed the openca-ocspd package provided by upstream on sourceforge.net (http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=20873package_id=25740). Version 1.5.1-0.3.rc1: _ Obsoletes/Provides completed. _ Group 'daemon' replaced by 'ocspd'. http://www.etude-riondel.ch/pm/ocspd.spec http://www.etude-riondel.ch/pm/ocspd-1.5.1-0.3.rc1.fc8.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460000] Review Request: rxtx - Parallel communication for the Java Development Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=46 Levente Farkas [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] |fedora-cvs? |rg) | --- Comment #13 from Levente Farkas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 08:37:28 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: rxtx Short Description: Serial and Parallel communication for Java Owners: lfarkas Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-5 InitialCC: lfarkas -- Configure 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 465740] Review Request: rubygem-gettext - RubyGem of Localization Library and Tools for Ruby
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=465740 Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |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 463902] Review Request: chktex - LaTex semantic checker
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=463902 --- Comment #7 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 05:18:35 EDT --- cvs done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460886] Review Request: libnetdude - a libpcap trace file manipulation library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460886 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 09:29:27 EDT --- I'm willing to do this review. Post updated versions addressing Fabian's comments in #1, and I'll assign to myself and complete. -- Configure 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 465740] Review Request: rubygem-gettext - RubyGem of Localization Library and Tools for Ruby
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=465740 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 07:26:50 EDT --- Rebuilt on all branches, submitted push requests on bodhi, closing. Thank you for the review and CVS procedure. -- Configure 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 465362] Review Request: openconnect -- client for Cisco AnyConnect VPN
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=465362 --- Comment #4 from Daniel Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 07:55:04 EDT --- If you chcon -t vpnc_exec_t openconnect, does the connection work without any avc messages? -- Configure 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 Levente Farkas [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Levente Farkas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 08:39:37 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: gstreamer-java Short Description: Java interface to the gstreamer framework Owners: lfarkas Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-5 InitialCC: lfarkas -- Configure 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 #44 from Jussi Lehtola [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 05:46:06 EDT
---
Got an OK to use %{_libexecdir}/%{name}-%{version} from the Packaging
committee. Also, modified the package to load the module automatically.
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/gromacs4
gromacs-common.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/modulefiles/gromacs
gromacs-common.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/profile.d/gromacs.csh
gromacs-common.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/profile.d/gromacs.sh
gromacs-csh.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized csh GROMACS support
gromacs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-devel.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gromacs-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-mpi.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-mpi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-mpi-devel.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gromacs-mpi-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-tutor.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-zsh.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-zsh.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized zsh GROMACS support
12 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 15 warnings.
Please review.
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/gromacs.spec
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/gromacs-4.0-0.14.rc3.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 454220] Review Request: germanium - a download manager for eMusic.com
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=454220 --- Comment #42 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 09:35:47 EDT --- Okay, once reverting to fedora-review?. If you are ready please let 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 463123] Review Request: gnomint - Graphical x509 Certification Authority management tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463123
Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 09:38:37 EDT
---
Almost okay.
* CFLAGS
* Gconf schemas install
-- Actually the reason this build didn't honor Fedora cflags
is because of configure(.in)
From configure.in:
---
119 if test x$GCC = xyes; then
120 CFLAGS=-Wall -Werror -g
121 fi
---
The line 120 is completely unneeded (the corresponding
line on configure is around the lines 16745)
For this package just modifying configure is sufficient.
- build.log shows:
---
560 if test -z /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/gnomint-0.5.4-1.fc10.i386 ; then
\
561 for p in gnomint.schemas ; do \
562
GCONF_CONFIG_SOURCE=xml:merged:/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.defaults gconftool-2
--makefile-install-rule $p; \
563 done \
564 fi
---
Calling gconf-2 during rpmbuild is not preferred (see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#GConf )
Fortunately configure accepts --disable-schemas-install, which
prevents gconf-2 call.
So changing %build stage as below will solve these two issues:
---
%build
sed -i -e 's|CFLAGS=-Wall -Werror -g |true|' configure
%configure --disable-schemas-install
make %{?_smp_mflags}
---
* Scriptlets
- For safety close the lines with || : even for update-desktop-database:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database
Other things are okay.
---
This package (gnomint) is APPROVED by mtasaka
---
As I wrote on another review request:
Please follow the procedure written on:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join
from Install the Client Tools (Koji) .
I am already sponsoring you.
If you want to import this package into Fedora 8/9, you also have
to look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT
(after once you rebuilt this package on koji Fedora rebuilding system).
If you have questions, please ask me.
--
Configure 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 454220] Review Request: germanium - a download manager for eMusic.com
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=454220 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review+ |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 457517] Review Request: perl-Padre - Perl Application Development and Refactoring Environment
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=457517 --- Comment #8 from Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 07:56:21 EDT --- This test should be ignored in the meantime, please 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 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 Levente Farkas [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] | |rg) | --- Comment #9 from Levente Farkas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 05:38:17 EDT --- we just had some discussion with jna, libffi and gstreamer-java packager and upstream developer to be able to package gstreamer-java-1.0 which is working and run on fedora 9,10,11 and rhel-5 too (most problem was generated by this review reqest:-). if all these issue will be solved (probably after a newer jna and gstreamer-java release) i'll submit this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 463902] Review Request: chktex - LaTex semantic checker
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=463902 Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |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 461131] Review Request: sim - Simple Instant Messenger
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=461131 --- Comment #49 from Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 09:43:01 EDT --- Another thing :) I found out that last update change location of settings and history from ~/.kde/share/apps into ~/.sim. That's upstream change or you did it only in Fedora? 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 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 #10 from Paul F. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 10:09:14 EDT --- Michel : If you're snowed under, I don't mind taking this one over for review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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
Paul F. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #9 from Paul F. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 10:08:27
EDT ---
I'll have a look-see at it tonight. I have some spare time ;-)
I not checked, but as a quicky, are all occurences of $(prefix)/lib removed
from the configure and makefiles as well as the .pc one? It won't pass if there
are any of them in there. This is NOT optional, they have to be removed.
Make sure that if it's installing files into the gac that the command line for
this also has it being installed into %{_libdir} and not $prefix/lib. Again,
this will fail it under 64 bit systems.
Also check that you're using the exclusivearch which is used in the likes of
the mono, monodevelop and other such packages.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459979] Review Request: mlt - Toolkit for broadcasters, video editors, media players, transcoders
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459979
--- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 10:52:47 EDT
---
Well,
* For compilation flags, removing -ffastmath, -fomit-frame-pointer and so on
can be done (for this package) by:
%build
sed -i -e '/fomit-frame-pointer/d' configure
sed -i -e '/ffast-math/d' configure
%configure --enable-gpl --disable-sox
-
* For preventing binaries from being stripped, changing install -c -s to
install -c (in Makefile's in this tarball) will fix it
* For execstack issue, accoding to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Executable_stack
the following will fix this issue:
-
BuildRequires: prelink
execstack -c $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/%{name}/libmltgtk2.so
--
* About binaries' names
- This package installs some files under %_bindir, some of them
have too generic names (like miracle):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Use_of_common_namespace
Would you rename binaries' names such as mlt-miracle, for example?
--
Configure 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 #45 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2008-10-08 11:12:00 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #44)
Got an OK to use %{_libexecdir}/%{name}-%{version} from the Packaging
committee. Also, modified the package to load the module automatically.
I read the discussion in fedora-packaging, but I haven't seen any conclusion
yet.
--
Configure 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 462250] Review Request: python-pmw - python megawidgets
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=462250 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 11:28:44 EDT --- Okay. One minor issue - tkinter has Requires: python so Requires: python can be removed from this package (Requires: tkinter is still needed) Now: * This package itself is good * You have another review request (bug 462251), which I think is almost good This package (python-pmw) is APPROVED by mtasaka Please follow the procedure written on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join from Install the Client Tools (Koji) . I am already sponsoring you. If you want to import this package into Fedora 8/9, you also have to look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT (after once you rebuilt this package on koji Fedora rebuilding system). If you have questions, please ask me. Removing NEEDSPONSOR. -- Configure 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 461131] Review Request: sim - Simple Instant Messenger
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=461131 --- Comment #50 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 11:51:41 EDT --- I guess that it is the consequence using bcond_with instead of bcond_without which means that kde support is not compiled in. Hopefully next build will revert to using kde. -- Configure 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 #46 from Jussi Lehtola [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 12:00:17 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #45)
(In reply to comment #44)
Got an OK to use %{_libexecdir}/%{name}-%{version} from the Packaging
committee. Also, modified the package to load the module automatically.
I read the discussion in fedora-packaging, but I haven't seen any conclusion
yet.
Whoops, seems like I spoke too soon. The initial comments were positive. Sorry.
Anyway, I changed the locations of the binaries to libdir/gromacs-version/bin.
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/gromacs4
gromacs-common.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gromacs-common.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/modulefiles/gromacs
gromacs-common.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/profile.d/gromacs.csh
gromacs-common.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/profile.d/gromacs.sh
gromacs-csh.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized csh GROMACS support
gromacs-csh.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gromacs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-devel.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gromacs-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-mpi.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-mpi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-mpi-devel.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gromacs-mpi-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-tutor.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-zsh.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-zsh.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized zsh GROMACS support
gromacs-zsh.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
12 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 15 warnings.
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/gromacs.spec
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/gromacs-4.0-0.15.rc3.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 464308] Review Request: apt-mirror - APT sources mirroring tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464308 Tom spot Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|182235 | -- Configure 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 461131] Review Request: sim - Simple Instant Messenger
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=461131 --- Comment #51 from Pavel Alexeev [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 12:41:54 EDT --- (In reply to comment #50) I guess that it is the consequence using bcond_with instead of bcond_without which means that kde support is not compiled in. I thought it is true. In any case, I did not change any related setting. Hopefully next build will revert to using kde. Shure. I build it now. It will be available shortly. -- Configure 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 464308] Review Request: apt-mirror - APT sources mirroring tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464308 Tom spot Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #6 from Tom spot Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 12:45:58 EDT --- http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/a/apt-mirror/apt-mirror_0.4.5-1/apt-mirror.copyright is enough proof of licensing (GPLv2+), because the debian package maintainer is the same as upstream. You need to update the licensing tag to reflect this (currently, you have GPLv2, which is not correct). You should still email the author and ask him to include a proper license attribution in the header of the apt-mirror script, and a copy of the GPL (COPYING). Lifting FE-Legal. -- Configure 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 #16 from Åge Olai Johnsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 13:10:38 EDT --- The strange setting was done in a hurry. I've changed it to something closer to usefull: http://files.thaumaturge.org/users/dante/rancid/rancid.spec http://files.thaumaturge.org/users/dante/rancid/rancid-2.3.2-0.6.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 442268] Review Request: lxsession-lite - Lightweight X11 session manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442268 --- Comment #13 from Christoph Wickert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 13:40:10 EDT --- Patrice, I'm sure the package works correctly and there must be a fault in your configuration. Can you please try with the files from lxde-common (bug #442270) or base your configuration upon them? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 466147] New: Review Request:fedora-ksplice - Script Collection for Using KSplice on Fedora Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request:fedora-ksplice - Script Collection for Using KSplice on Fedora Linux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466147 Summary: Review Request:fedora-ksplice - Script Collection for Using KSplice on Fedora Linux Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/fedora-ksplice/fedora-ksplice.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/fedora-ksplice/fedora-ksplice-0.1-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: fedora-ksplice is a collection of shell scripts to use ksplice in a Fedora environment. -- Configure 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 461338] Review Request: dahdi - Userspace tools to configure the DAHDI kernel modules
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=461338 --- Comment #2 from Jeffrey C. Ollie [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 13:49:13 EDT --- Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jcollie/dahdi/dahdi.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jcollie/dahdi/dahdi-2.0.0-0.4.fc9.src.rpm (In reply to comment #1) version 2 for both -tools and -linux is out now. Once you have updated them to the 2.0 final release I can do a review. Is there a reason the two packages are combined? To compile the -tools package you need some header files from the -linux package. Since the -linux package contains the kernel modules it can't be made available as a package for Fedora so I just included the tarball in the -tools package rather than extracting the individual header files. I just figured that it would be simpler to keep things in sync if I included the whole tarball. I also noticed you add a user as part of the install but dont remove it on uninstall, not sure what the standard for that is though. I'm pretty sure the standard is to not remove users because unless you scan the whole filesystem you don't know if there are any files owned by the user. -- Configure 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 458338] Review Request: DivFix++ - A program to repair broken AVI file streams by rebuilding index part of file
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=458338
--- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 14:16:49 EDT
---
Well,
* SourceURL
- seems 404. The correct one is perhaps:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/divfixpp/%{name}_v%{version}-src.tar.bz2
* Compilation flags
(In reply to comment #3)
* Compilation flags
- Fedora specific compilation flags are not correctly honored.
You can check what compilation flags are used by
$ rpm --eval %optflags
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags
- Also compilation flag -Os supersedes -O2 flag in %optflags so
please remove this.
Excuse me, but I do ot completely understand you. I'm do ot provide manually
any compilation flags, so, default must be used.
- So what I am saying is that you must modify cflags what is used
on this tarball by default so that Fedora cflags are used correctly
(i.e. you must use %optflags manually).
Also this tarball uses -Os option, which should be removed.
One of the solution is:
%prep
%setup -q -n %{name}_v%{version}
sed -i.flags -e 's|-Os||' makefile
..
..
%build
make %{?_smp_mflags} WXCONFIG=wx-config CPP=g++ %optflags
---
* Desktop
- Please set Category. Currently no Category is found
(by the way --remove-category=Application can be removed
if you don't use Application as Category from the
beginning)
* Macros
- %distname is not defined.
%distname replaced by %{distribution}
- My system does not define %distribution macro. Koji seems to
define it, however its value (string) is Unknown so
this is still wrong.
Just use --vendor=fedora.
! By the way if you put macros in braces please them consistently
for cosmetic issue (i.e. use %{__install})
--
Configure 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 465478] Review Request: symbolic - web application aimed to simplify management within complex enterpreise infrastructures
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=465478 Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #1 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 14:57:47 EDT --- Ok, I found a major problem right off. BuildRequires: grails = 1.0.3 Does not exist in Fedora. Is there a review request to add it? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 465478] Review Request: symbolic - web application aimed to simplify management within complex enterpreise infrastructures
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=465478 --- Comment #2 from Luca Foppiano [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 15:04:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) Ok, I found a major problem right off. BuildRequires: grails = 1.0.3 Does not exist in Fedora. Is there a review request to add it? Damn! I forgot it!! ok, I'll submit asap a new request for grails. thanks Luca -- Configure 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 462251] Review Request: PyMOL - python molecular graphics
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=462251 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 | -- Configure 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 465478] Review Request: symbolic - web application aimed to simplify management within complex enterpreise infrastructures
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=465478 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 15:11:52 EDT --- If you like, post a link to that here, and I'll take a look at it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 465478] Review Request: symbolic - web application aimed to simplify management within complex enterpreise infrastructures
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=465478 --- Comment #4 from Luca Foppiano [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 15:19:21 EDT --- Thanks but I think I need to work a bit on that package, because IMHO is not ready to fedora... thanks Luca -- Configure 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 459631] Review Request: insight - GDB debugger GUI
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=459631 --- Comment #7 from Patrick Monnerat [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 15:20:32 EDT --- I uploaded a new version: http://www.etude-riondel.ch/pm/insight.spec http://www.etude-riondel.ch/pm/insight-6.8-2.fc8.src.rpm I tried to cross-mock it for fedora-devel-x86_64 on a i386, without success (missing basic dependencies at yum time). Perhaps there is a trick I did not find on the web/forums? The new version fixes what seems to be the problem on x86_64... but I can't check it without the access to a 64bit machine and without knowing the above mentioned trick, if it exists. It also uses the system-installed readline and uses expat. Mocks for i386. No rpmlint report. Runs on i386 fc8. For the binary name, the question is the same as for the package name (see comment #2). Cygwin developers know it as such, and Debian has kept it unchanged. I also fear CLI users will be puzzled by another name. If you really want to change it, do you have any naming proposals ? Thanks for your time -- Configure 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 #11 from Paul F. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 15:23:27 EDT --- spec file autoreconf is not required. You've only altered the .pc file. Means that you can remove the BR for automake and autoconf. Please add in BR monodoc-devel. You should always build documentation if it's available. rpmlint comes out with it's usual errors about there being no binary in the main package, so I'd not worry there. Rebuild with monodoc enabled (remember, you also need this as a R as well) and I'm happy. I think it's Michel that has to approve it though. -- Configure 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 452901] Review Request: ocspd - OpenCA OCSP Daemon
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=452901 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #17 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 15:22:35 EDT --- Okay. * This package itself is now okay. * As written on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored A person who wants to get sponsor is requested to show that you have an understanding of the process and of the packaging guidelines, usually by submitting another review request or do a pre-review of other person's review request. For your case you have another review request (bug 459631). The srpm in that bug does not build (on x86_64) currently, however the spec file itself seems good to some extent and I hope you will fix it properly (note: it may be that I don't have enough time to review bug 459631) This package (ocspd) is APPROVED by mtasaka Please follow the procedure written on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join from Get a Fedora Account. After you request for sponsorship a mail will be sent to sponsor members automatically (which is invisible for you) which notifies that you need a sponsor. After that, please also write on this bug for confirmation that you requested for sponsorship and your FAS (Fedora Account System) name. Then I will sponsor you. If you want to import this package into Fedora 8/9, you also have to look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT (after once you rebuilt this package on koji Fedora rebuilding system). If you have questions, please ask me. -- Configure 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 465478] Review Request: symbolic - web application aimed to simplify management within complex enterpreise infrastructures
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=465478 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 15:37:56 EDT --- Feel free to email the f-devel list or myself if you'd like assistance getting it to that point. -- Configure 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 442233] Review Request: oprofileui - user interface for analysing oprofile data
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=442233 --- Comment #10 from Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 15:42:18 EDT --- looks great to me. Thanks Terje. -- Configure 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 459631] Review Request: insight - GDB debugger GUI
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=459631 --- Comment #8 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 15:45:08 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) I uploaded a new version: http://www.etude-riondel.ch/pm/insight.spec http://www.etude-riondel.ch/pm/insight-6.8-2.fc8.src.rpm I tried to cross-mock it for fedora-devel-x86_64 on a i386, without success (missing basic dependencies at yum time). Perhaps there is a trick I did not find on the web/forums? You can't do that. You need an x86_64 machine. If you were already a Fedora packager, you could use koji --build file.src.rpm. The new version fixes what seems to be the problem on x86_64... but I can't check it without the access to a 64bit machine and without knowing the above mentioned trick, if it exists. I'm sure the reviewer will check that. [...] For the binary name, the question is the same as for the package name (see comment #2). Cygwin developers know it as such, and Debian has kept it unchanged. I also fear CLI users will be puzzled by another name. If you really want to change it, do you have any naming proposals ? FWIW, I'm pretty sure the binary name is OK. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 #12 from Michel Alexandre Salim [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 17:07:10 EDT --- So the configure script can be simplified; the --disable-docs can be removed. The question then is: where do the documentations go? Since they are mostly developer-oriented, probably the -devel subpackage, and make it Provides: notify-sharp-doc. Or turn it entirely into its own subpackage (but this would leave the -devel subpackage containing only one file, as it does now -- a bit wasteful). -- Configure 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 464308] Review Request: apt-mirror - APT sources mirroring tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464308 manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 17:32:59 EDT --- package APPROVED. please do not forget to change the license tag to GPLv2+ before uploading to 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 466183] New: Review Request: sblim-sfcb - Small Footprint CIM Broker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: sblim-sfcb - Small Footprint CIM Broker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466183 Summary: Review Request: sblim-sfcb - Small Footprint CIM Broker 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://sblim.sourceforge.net/fedora-rpms/sblim-sfcb.spec SRPM URL: http://sblim.sourceforge.net/fedora-rpms/sblim-sfcb-1.3.2-1.src.rpm Description: Small Footprint CIM Broker (sfcb) is a CIM server conforming to the CIM Operations over HTTP protocol. It is robust, with low resource consumption and therefore specifically suited for embedded and resource constrained environments. sfcb supports providers written against the Common Manageability Programming Interface (CMPI). -- Configure 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 466183] Review Request: sblim-sfcb - Small Footprint CIM Broker
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=466183 --- Comment #1 from Emily Ratliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 18:14:47 EDT --- $ rpmlint sblim-sfcb.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint sblim-sfcb-1.3.2-1.src.rpm sblim-sfcb.src: W: non-standard-group System Tools 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint sblim*rpm sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcCertificateAuthentication.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcFileRepository.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcProfileProvider.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcCimXmlCodec.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcBasicPAMAuthentication.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcClassProviderMem.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcClassProvider.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcIndCIMXMLHandler.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcBasicAuthentication.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcBrokerCore.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcInteropServerProvider.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcInteropProvider.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcInternalProvider.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcUtil.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcHttpAdapter.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcQualifierProvider.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libcimcClientSfcbLocal.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcObjectImplSwapI32toP32.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcClassProviderGz.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: non-standard-group System Tools sblim-sfcb.i386: W: service-default-enabled /etc/init.d/sfcb sblim-sfcb.i386: W: incoherent-init-script-name sfcb sblim-sfcb-schema.i386: W: no-documentation sblim-sfcb-schema.i386: W: non-standard-group System Tools sblim-sfcb-schema.i386: W: invalid-license Distributed Management Task Force 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 25 warnings. I believe that the warnings about the libraries are all false positives because sfcb loads support libraries as needed. They are not development libraries. (19 warnings) I left the init script named sfcb rather than sblim-sfcb because that is what upstream does and that is what other community distros do. (2 warnings) My understanding is that the group name doesn't really matter. (2 warnings) The schema is copyright DMTF, see Release notes http://www.dmtf.org/standards/cim/cim_schema_v219/ReleaseNotes.html (1 warning) I left the schema package as a subpackage follow upstream's lead - advise on whether this is correct or not would be appreciated. -- Configure 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 #13 from Sindre Pedersen Bjørdal [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 18:29:45 EDT --- The autoconf is needed because the source tarball is constructed from a svn checkout. Without it there won't be any configure. As for the monodoc compilation fails with the following errors: Making all in docs make[1]: Entering directory `/home/foolish/rpmbuild/BUILD/notify-sharp-20080912/docs' /usr/bin/mdassembler --out notify-sharp-docs --ecma ./en /usr/bin/mdassembler --out notify-sharp-docs --ecma ./en Unhandled Exception: System.IO.IOException: Sharing violation on path /home/foolish/rpmbuild/BUILD/notify-sharp-20080912/docs/notify-sharp-docs.zip at System.IO.FileStream..ctor (System.String path, FileMode mode, FileAccess access, FileShare share, Int32 bufferSize, Boolean anonymous, FileOptions options) [0x0] at System.IO.FileStream..ctor (System.String path, FileMode mode, FileAccess access, FileShare share, Int32 bufferSize) [0x0] at (wrapper remoting-invoke-with-check) System.IO.FileStream:.ctor (string,System.IO.FileMode,System.IO.FileAccess,System.IO.FileShare,int) at System.IO.File.Create (System.String path, Int32 bufferSize, FileOptions options, System.Object fileSecurity) [0x0] at System.IO.File.Create (System.String path) [0x0] at Monodoc.HelpSource.SetupForOutput () [0x0] at Monodoc.HelpSource..ctor (System.String base_filename, Boolean create) [0x0] at Mono.Documentation.Assembler.Main (System.String[] args) [0x0] make[1]: *** [notify-sharp-docs.tree] Error 1 make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs Processing namespace Notifications Processing input file ActionArgs.xml Processing input file ActionHandler.xml Processing input file CloseArgs.xml Processing input file CloseHandler.xml Processing input file CloseReason.xml Processing input file Global.xml Processing input file Notification.xml Processing input file ServerInformation.xml Processing input file Urgency.xml Have 9 elements in the Notifications make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/foolish/rpmbuild/BUILD/notify-sharp-20080912/docs' make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.eQSVfb (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.eQSVfb (%build) Any tips on this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 465362] Review Request: openconnect -- client for Cisco AnyConnect VPN
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=465362 --- Comment #6 from Daniel Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 18:33:13 EDT --- What is the path to openconnect? -- Configure 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 442268] Review Request: lxsession-lite - Lightweight X11 session manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442268 --- Comment #14 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 18:50:09 EDT --- I tried, and it also doesn't work. That being said, I don't think that it should be a blocker, especially for devel. Do you want to work more on this, or have the package formally reviewed? -- Configure 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 246368] Review Request: pbbuttonsd - hotkeys, power management, and keyboard backlight for Apple laptops
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=246368 --- Comment #4 from Gabriel Somlo [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 18:47:55 EDT --- No update, sorry. Got buried in other work, after having limited success with pbbuttonsd, and I'd still like a solution that worked on intel hardware as well as the older G4 stuff. Not sure where that leaves this particular package. If it were already in Fedora officially, I'd keep maintaining it. But since I have limited interest in it as I'm on an intel macbook pro now, I'm reluctant to push for its acceptance at this point. If you know anyone interested in pushing it through anyway, let me know... -- Configure 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 462250] Review Request: python-pmw - python megawidgets
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=462250 --- Comment #9 from Tim Fenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 18:58:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) Okay. One minor issue - tkinter has Requires: python so Requires: python can be removed from this package (Requires: tkinter is still needed) Fixed. spec url: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/python-pmw.spec srpm url: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/python-pmw-1.3.2-5.f8.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462250] Review Request: python-pmw - python megawidgets
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=462250 Tim Fenn [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 462250] Review Request: python-pmw - python megawidgets
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=462250 --- Comment #10 from Tim Fenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 19:01:53 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: python-pmw Short Description: python megawidgets Owners: timfenn Branches: F-10 EL-5 InitialCC: timfenn -- Configure 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 461699] Review Request: remoot - ReMoot is a remote control wrapper
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=461699
--- Comment #5 from manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 19:18:57
EDT ---
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 including the Perl specific items
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
-- see issue 1
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/remoot-0.9/README
-- see issue 2
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: Artistic 2.0
[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.
[!] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
006430c9ee24d6645a10693c5a075c1722876e21 remoot-0.9.tar.gz
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[!] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
-- see issue 3
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: koji scratch build
[?] Package functions as described (no hardware to test with).
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
ISSUES
1. two code have slipped in the Requires: perl line. Please replace it with
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo $version))
2. please use iconv (plus touch -r to preserve the timestamp) to fix this. it's
cosmetic but too easy to not fix it
3. The BR for perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) is useless. You are not using it.
3. Some of the Requires line are not needed either, rpmbuild peeks them
automatically. Your current version of the spec leads to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ rpm -qpR remoot-0.9-2.fc10.noarch.rpm
/usr/bin/perl
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_) == faulty because of issue 1
perl(Benchmark)
perl(Benchmark) ==duplicate
perl(Tk)
perl(Tk) ==duplicate
perl(strict)
perl(strict) ==duplicate
perl(warnings)
perl(warnings) ==duplicate
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
compared with:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ rpm -qpR
/var/lib/mock//fedora-development-x86_64/result
/remoot-0.9-2.fc10.noarch.rpm
/usr/bin/perl
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0)
perl(Benchmark)
perl(Tk)
perl(strict)
perl(warnings)
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
which happens if using
Summary:ReMoot is a remote control wrapper
Name: remoot
Version:0.9
Release:3%{?dist}
License:Artistic 2.0
Group:
[Bug 442268] Review Request: lxsession-lite - Lightweight X11 session manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442268 --- Comment #15 from Christoph Wickert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 19:28:43 EDT --- I have no idea what's going wrong for you. It works reliable for me and others, on the other hand I see no obviuos error in your setup. Anyway: If you want to do a review please try this one. Includes your suggestions from comment #10. http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/lxsession-lite-0.3.6-1.fc10.src.rpm http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/lxsession-lite.spec Do you see the icons in the logout dialog? There should be icons since the new version now includes a copy of them, but some people reported missing icons. Looks like a problem with gtk-update-icon-cache. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 463035] Review Request: pyroman - Very fast firewall configuration tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463035 --- Comment #2 from Adam Huffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 19:37:59 EDT --- Thanks for having a look. I've addressed most of your comments, though not yet the problem with the rulesets. I need to think about how best to handle both the built-in rules and those the user creates. Probably I'll adapt what's in the Debian package, as noted in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454220#c36 New versions at: http://verdurin.fedorapeople.org/review/pyroman/pyroman.spec http://verdurin.fedorapeople.org/review/pyroman/pyroman-0.4.6-2.fc10.src.rpm Once I've a working fix for the rule handling, I'll upload a new version. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 463123] Review Request: gnomint - Graphical x509 Certification Authority management tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463123 --- Comment #9 from Adam Huffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 19:53:27 EDT --- Thanks again. Have uploaded: http://verdurin.fedorapeople.org/review/gnomint/gnomint.spec http://verdurin.fedorapeople.org/review/gnomint/gnomint-0.5.4-2.fc10.src.rpm in the light of your comments. One thing I noticed during rpmbuild is the message /home/adam/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/gnomint-0.5.4-2.fc10.x86_64/usr/share/applications/gnomint.desktop: key Categories is a list and does not have a semicolon as trailing character, fixing. Would it be cleaner to remove the Application category with a patch, rather than using the --remove-category option? Or doesn't it really matter? -- Configure 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 461849] Review Request: garmintools - Communication tools for Garmin 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=461849 Brian Pepple [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||ess.net) --- Comment #3 from Brian Pepple [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 20:01:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) I hope that I fixed all points in the right way because I'm still in the 'learn-how-to-make-packages' phase. Unfortunately this packages depends on 'libgarmin' that is no available in Fedora. So I have to pack 'libgarmin' first and then we can go on with this package. Sorry about getting back to you late, but I've been swamped the last few weeks. Anyway, has libgarmin been submitted for a package 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 466193] New: Review Request: alee-fonts - Korean TrueType Fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: alee-fonts - Korean TrueType Fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466193 Summary: Review Request: alee-fonts - Korean TrueType Fonts 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://smallvil.fedorapeople.org/rpm/alee-fonts/alee-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://smallvil.fedorapeople.org/rpm/alee-fonts/srpm/alee-fonts-12-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: Alee family of Korean TrueType fonts -- Configure 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 463123] Review Request: gnomint - Graphical x509 Certification Authority management tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463123 Adam Huffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Adam Huffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 20:28:19 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: gnomint Short Description: Graphical x509 Certification Authority management tool Owners: verdurin Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: verdurin -- Configure 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 463123] Review Request: gnomint - Graphical x509 Certification Authority management tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463123 --- Comment #11 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 21:39:17 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) One thing I noticed during rpmbuild is the message /home/adam/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/gnomint-0.5.4-2.fc10.x86_64/usr/share/applications/gnomint.desktop: key Categories is a list and does not have a semicolon as trailing character, fixing. Would it be cleaner to remove the Application category with a patch, rather than using the --remove-category option? Or doesn't it really matter? It does not matter because as the message says desktop-file-install fixes this Category does not end with semicolon common mistake. If you want to fix this by patch it should modify gui/gnomint.desktop.in like: Categories=GNOME;System;Security; (i.e. Security must have semicolon), however as I said desktop-file-install fixes this issue. -- Configure 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 462250] Review Request: python-pmw - python megawidgets
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=462250 --- Comment #11 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 22:37:29 EDT --- cvs done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460000] Review Request: rxtx - Parallel communication for the Java Development Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=46 Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |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 460000] Review Request: rxtx - Parallel communication for the Java Development Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=46 --- Comment #14 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 22:42:12 EDT --- cvs done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462250] Review Request: python-pmw - python megawidgets
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=462250 Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |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 463123] Review Request: gnomint - Graphical x509 Certification Authority management tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463123 Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |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 463123] Review Request: gnomint - Graphical x509 Certification Authority management tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463123 --- Comment #12 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 22:53:20 EDT --- cvs done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment
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=431250
--- Comment #34 from Michal Jaegermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-09 00:48:20
EDT ---
Files in rep/%{version}/%{_host}/ were moved from
%{_libexecdir}/rep/... to %{_libdir}/rep/...
Not sure when, how and what for? This makes sawfish
specs, ahem, interesting as they work or not depending
only on with which version of librep you are trying
to compile without any real interface changes in this
library. Sawfish will compile but %files section will
change depending on circumstances. It is possible
to check in specs where librep in use puts 'rep'
and define %{librepwhere} accordingly to be used
in %files; it looks like an extra bother.
Was this an attempt to make librep and sawfish
multilib? I miss a purpose of such exercise although
maybe there is one?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
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 #17 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-09 01:40:50 EDT --- Now this package itself is good. So as I wrote in comment 13, I will wait for your another review request or pre-review of other person's review request. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
