[Bug 462104] Review Request: cryptopp - Public domain C++ class library of cryptographic schemes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462104 Aurelien Bompard [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Aurelien Bompard [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 04:38:55 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: cryptopp Short Description: Public domain C++ class library of cryptographic schemes Owners: abompard Branches: F-8 F-9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464781] Review Request: flexdock - Java docking UI element. First package.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464781 --- Comment #6 from D Haley [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 04:43:48 EDT --- Hello, Sorry about that, but the spec file I uploaded was completely bogus: don't bother officially reviewing the package at this stage :(. I have modified the spec file to create a jar file and install that, rather than installing all the .class files everywhere. Unfortunately my examination of the package has shown more problems than just .class files. Problem: Flexdock depends on several other libraries: *Java media framework http://java.sun.com/javase/technologies/desktop/media/jmf/ ./lib/jmf/lib/jmf.jar ./lib/jmf/lib/mediaplayer.jar ./lib/jmf/lib/multiplayer.jar ./lib/jmf/lib/customizer.jar -- *Looks project https://looks.dev.java.net/ ./lib/looks-2.1.1.jar *skinlf Skin look and Feel project https://skinlf.dev.java.net/ ./lib/skinlf.jar Each of which don't appear to have fedora packages at this stage. Unless I am allowed to use the .jar files supplied with flexdock, flexdock cannot build. I have uploaded the new .spec file in case anyone has any comments. Note that the ant-jmf seems to cause a build failure, and thus cannot be used: compile: [javac] Compiling 229 source files to /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/BUILD/flexdock-0.5.1/build/bin [javac] Note: Some input files use or override a deprecated API. [javac] Note: Recompile with -Xlint:deprecation for details. [javac] Compiling 29 source files to /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/BUILD/flexdock-0.5.1/build/bin-demo [javac] /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/BUILD/flexdock-0.5.1/src/java/demo/org/flexdock/demos/raw/jmf/MediaPanel.java:21: package javax.media does not exist [javac] import javax.media.ControllerEvent; [javac] ^ Am I supposed to now create packages for each of the missing deps? If someone can tell me what I am supposed to do now, that would be great! 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 464781] Review Request: flexdock - Java docking UI element. First package.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464781 --- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 05:32:45 EDT --- Well, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#Pre-built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software Removing all pre-compiled .jar files (.class files etc) at %prep is _mandatory_ on Fedora to make it sure that all files are correctly built from FOSS file. If this package needs some external jar files you must package them in advance (example: bug 428798 , especially the discussion from bug 428798 comment 11 ) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 466997] Review Request: sl - Joke command for when you type 'sl' instead of 'ls'
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466997 Marc Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from Marc Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 05:44:55 EDT --- Thankyou Mamoru. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: sl Short Description: Joke command for when you type 'sl' instead of 'ls' Owners: deebs Branches: F-8 F-9 EL-4 EL-5 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 466658] Review Request: VisualBoyAdvance - Nintendo Gameboy (,Advance,Color) Emulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466658 Andrea Musuruane [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #9 from Andrea Musuruane [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 05:50:38 EDT --- I had just a quick look at the spec file. It seems some things are missing. For example there is no GTK+ GUI and no i18n support. You may also want to read this thread where there is another spec file for Fedora: http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=45988 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461912] Review Request: puzzles - A collection of one-player puzzle games
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461912 --- Comment #8 from Sergio Pascual [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 06:00:03 EDT --- * You still need to add BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils * I think the iconv line belongs to %prep * The version in the two first lines in %changelog is wrong, it should be 8200 * The sentence in %description still begins with a lower case letter. About the version, I would follow upstream convention. There are other packages with high version numbers (e.g. xterm is 236) About the menus, I don't think is possible/convenient to modify the menu layout. Users can change it using applications (for example, alacarte). Anyway, I will ask in the packagers list -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464781] Review Request: flexdock - Java docking UI element. First package.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464781 --- Comment #9 from D Haley [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 06:06:31 EDT --- Sorry about the dup, forgot the JMF FAQ link: http://java.sun.com/javase/technologies/desktop/media/jmf/reference/faqs/index.html#jmfsource -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464781] Review Request: flexdock - Java docking UI element. First package.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464781 --- Comment #8 from D Haley [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 06:05:50 EDT --- Looks like this might be dead in the water. Unless this is out of date, the JMF is available under the Sun Community Source Licensing, which is not allowed in fedora per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing. Might have to raise this as a bug at scilab. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468516] Review Request: verilator - A fast simulator of synthesizable Verilog HDL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468516 --- Comment #4 from Chitlesh GOORAH [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 06:27:40 EDT --- True, but since it's his first package for fedora, I prefer that he adopts some good practices :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457709] Review Request: perizia-fonts - English asymmetric font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457709 Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 06:41:31 EDT --- Sorry to have taken so long to look at this (actually I did some work on the subject in the background but didn't trace it in bugzilla). I've talked briefly with the Perizia author on irc recently. He's set up a new web site, http://hiran.in/ and tried to do a proper sfd+ttf release for his new font, Rufscript. He was intending to clean up Perizia too in the next weeks. Please contact him and coordinate to make sure that what he ends up publishing is something you can build a great package from: — have him publish the sfd sources so you can rebuild with our fontforge (cf inconsolata fonts package) — have him publish a detached license file that can be put in %doc — have him wrap it all in a versioned archive Apart from this, some review of your current submission — you've killed a 0 in the datetime stamp. Don't do that, you need the full 20080803 stamp if you don't want problems during upgrades (alternatively if you can convince Hiran to use clean versioning in the font metadata you can use it instead of dates) — are you sure you want to register perizia in fontconfig as sans-serif and not fantasy? (the fantasy generic is available on recent fontconfig versions) Anyway your spec is clean and readable, and the font source is clear so I'll have no problems approving it all once those points are taken care of. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457709] Review Request: perizia-fonts - English asymmetric font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457709 Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||om) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457709] Review Request: perizia-fonts - English asymmetric font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457709 --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 06:50:47 EDT --- Also your package currently does not build Please take a look at bug #467507 to see how one performs a %setup on a single file not wrapped inside an archive (but if you can get upstream to release a proper archive the problem will go away by itself). Since Rahul and you are packaging fonts from the same author you can probably try to approach him collectively, to make sure you ask for the same things for both 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 468554] Review Request: barrage - Kill and destroy as many targets as possible within 3 minutes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468554
--- Comment #2 from Simon Wesp [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 06:47:20 EDT ---
Some Issues
missing DesktopFile usage
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage)
Remove unusualy Categories in the desktopfile install like
(http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html)
desktop-file-install \
--remove-category=X-Red-Hat-Base;Application \
--delete-original \
--dir=%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications \
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}/applications/%name.desktop
echo Icon=barrage barrage.desktop
use macros, because it looks better:
echo Icon=%{name} %{name}.desktop
in my opinion it is better to write a little patch to correct the categories
and the missing icon of this desktopfile and
just validate the desktopfile install. It's easier to handle and minimize and
clear the spec-file.
desktop-file-validate $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop
Icons:
look at comment 1
%files:
you wrote:
%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}
%{_datadir}/%{name}/*
I would rather write:
%{_datadir}/%{name}/
%doc AUTHORS ChangeLog COPYING INSTALL README
%doc AUTHORS BUGS ChangeLog COPYING INSTALL README
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457709] Review Request: perizia-fonts - English asymmetric font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457709 Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457709] Review Request: perizia-fonts - English asymmetric font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457709 Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? | --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 06:54:46 EDT --- Lastly you should not touch the fedora-review flag. Setting it to ? basically means you've committed to reviewing this package, which you can't (since you're the packager), and thus you've deadlocked your own submission. Fixing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468579] New: Review Request: PyQuante - Python Quantum Chemistry
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: PyQuante - Python Quantum Chemistry https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468579 Summary: Review Request: PyQuante - Python Quantum Chemistry 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://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/PyQuante.spec SRPM URL: http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/PyQuante-1.6.1-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: PyQuante is an open-source suite of programs for developing quantum chemistry methods. The program is written in the Python programming language, but has many rate-determining modules also written in C for speed. The resulting code, though not as fast as Jaguar, NWChem, Gaussian, or GAMESS, is much easier to understand and modify. The goal of this software is not necessarily to provide a working quantum chemistry program (although it will hopefully do that), but rather to provide a well-engineered set of tools so that scientists can construct their own quantum chemistry programs without going through the tedium of having to write every low-level routine. rpmlint output: PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/Minimizers.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/IO/XYZ.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/GridPoint.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/qmmd.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/pyints.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/PGBF.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/MINDO3_Parameters.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/DFunctionals.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/IO/Molf.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/Constants.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/Basis/Tools.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/Atom.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/dft.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/Molecule.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/leapfrog.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/OEP.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/EN2.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/Lebedev.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/fermi_dirac.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/ThomasFermi.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/MINDO3.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/pressure.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/pressure.py PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/DMP.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/Bunch.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/IO/Cube.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/LA2.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/Dynamics.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/IO/Jaguar.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/AnalyticDerivatives.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/AnalyticDerivatives.py PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/Wavefunction.py 0644 PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
[Bug 468554] Review Request: barrage - Kill and destroy as many targets as possible within 3 minutes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468554
--- Comment #3 from Christoph Wickert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 07:15:36
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Remove unusualy Categories in the desktopfile install like
(http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html)
desktop-file-install \
--remove-category=X-Red-Hat-Base;Application \
--delete-original \
--dir=%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications \
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}/applications/%name.desktop
Application needs to be removed for it is no longer a valid category.
X-Red-Hat-Base can remain. Categories prefixed with X- are considered as
custom categories. Nevertheless X-Red-Hat-Base is not really needed anymore,
it was used to define what apps should appear at top level once.
echo Icon=barrage barrage.desktop
use macros, because it looks better:
echo Icon=%{name} %{name}.desktop
Using macros here hardly adds any value. The guidelines say one should use
macros consistently, this means not to mix %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT for
example, but this does not mean one necessarily needs to use macros everywhere.
Regarding the icon: 48x48 would be better than 32x32.
in my opinion it is better to write a little patch to correct the categories
and the missing icon of this desktopfile and
just validate the desktopfile install. It's easier to handle and minimize and
clear the spec-file.
I disagree. IMHO a patch should be avoided here, because it adds additional
overhead. desktop-file-install is there for editing and installing desktop
files and will also validate them.
I would rather write:
%{_datadir}/%{name}/
correct
%doc AUTHORS BUGS ChangeLog COPYING INSTALL README
Remove INSTALL from %doc, it is not needed when installing from rpm and thus
only adds confusion.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 466974] Review Request: vdr-remote - Extended remote control plugin for VDR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466974 --- Comment #5 from Ville-Pekka Vainio [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 07:19:28 EDT --- Since you have a plan on managing the patches, I won't consider using the debian patchkit or the offsets and fuzz a blocker for the review. I'll try to go through the packaging guidelines later today or tomorrow. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468554] Review Request: barrage - Kill and destroy as many targets as possible within 3 minutes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468554 --- Comment #4 from Christoph Wickert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 07:18:26 EDT --- The timestamp of Source0 nside the SRPM does not match SourceURL. Pleas use wget or similar to download and keep the timestamp, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467507] Review Request: Rufscript-fonts - Rufscripts is a decorative handwriting based font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467507 Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review?, ||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||om) --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 07:28:20 EDT --- 1. Since Minto Joseph and you are both packaging Hiran's fonts, you should get together and interact with Hiran collectively (see bug #457709). 2. It's not a good idea to keep the versioning in the TTF filename, some apps refer fonts by filename and will get cross with you if it changes every version 3. You should discuss with Minto if you want to adopt a common prefix for your font packages names (for example hiranv-rufscript-fonts and perizia-rufscript-fonts). We've more or less started to do it for big foundries (gfs, sil) and some individual font authors (thibault), it's probably better to generalise the convention to have consistent naming (please subscribe to the fonts SIG list if you haven't done so yet to get informed of packaging convention evolutions) 4. you can drop the -f in the fc-cache invocation for releases ≥ Fedora 9 → http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FontsSpecTemplate 5. Some people want all Fedora-added source files in a package to be prefixed with the package name. You don't follow this convention for your fontconfig file. Please take inspiration from the general packaging guidelines or Minto's package to fix it. → http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FontsSpecTemplate → bug #457709 6. 69 is a bit low, for a latin font like rufscript something between 62 and 64 would be fine → http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips#Simple_priority_lists 7. Please have upstream publish rufscript in a proper versioned archive with a detached license file you can add in %doc 8. Please reformat your xml files with xmllint --format before submission so they are nicely indented 9. I would have declared rufscript as a cursive font, not a sans-serif one 10. Please add a Generic name rule in addition to the Registering a font in default families rule → http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips#Generic_names This rule is used by fontconfig to complete your font with glyphs from other fonts when it encounters a codepoint your font is missing → http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips#Registering_a_font_in_default_families This rule is used by fontconfig to identify what fonts to use when an application requests a cursive font. 11. When you've written fontconfig rules you're happy with it's always a good idea to send them upstream to be included in the font next releases (in the versionned archive you're supposed to request) Despite the long todo list your spec is in good shape overall and it should not take much to get it in a state that can be approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457709] Review Request: perizia-fonts - English asymmetric font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457709 Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467507] Review Request: Rufscript-fonts - Rufscripts is a decorative handwriting based font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467507 Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 466193] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466193 Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review?, ||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||) --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 07:37:15 EDT --- Setting needinfo till the requested changes are done. Please remove the flag when the next version of the spec is ready -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464781] Review Request: flexdock - Java docking UI element. First package.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464781 --- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 07:57:57 EDT --- Well, while I cannot find out yet where to download JMF source file itself, as far as I read the link in your comment 9 jmf cannot be included in Fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462711] Review Request: Mothanna-fonts - Mothanna-fonts from Arabeyes.org
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462711 Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] ||at.com AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review?, ||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||.com) --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 08:29:28 EDT --- Needinfo till a package that conforms to the points listed in bug #461139 is made available -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464781] Review Request: flexdock - Java docking UI element. First package.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464781 --- Comment #11 from D Haley [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 08:52:08 EDT --- This has been reported as a bug at scilab, as this package is intended to support scilab-5.0.1 http://bugzilla.scilab.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3696 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467655] Review Request: yafaray - a raytracer for Blender.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467655 --- Comment #14 from Paulo Roma Cavalcanti [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 09:05:22 EDT --- ATrpms seems to be down. This is an alternative location for downloading the files: Spec URL: http://orion.lcg.ufrj.br/RPMS/SPECS/yafaray.spec SRPMS URL: http://orion.lcg.ufrj.br/RPMS/src/yafaray-0.1.0-5.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 464074] Review Request: cddlib - A library for generating all vertices in convex polyhedrons
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464074 --- Comment #6 from Paulo Roma Cavalcanti [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 09:33:20 EDT --- I would suggest a spec file like this: Spec URL: http://orion.lcg.ufrj.br/RPMS/SPECS/cddlib.spec Without BR: gmp-devel it does not build in mock... and for developing with cddlib, gmp-devel is also necessary. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 466737] Review Request: matio - Library for reading/writing Matlab MAT files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466737
Jussi Lehtola [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #5 from Jussi Lehtola [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 09:37:09 EDT
---
1. Why don't you have just one patch for the fortran-related stuff? Remove
commented sed line.
2. To my understanding you don't need the zlib patch, since you require zlib =
1.2.3 (the bug is only present in zlib 1.2.2). Remove patch0.
3. Remove all rpath related stuff, matio builds fine without them.
4. Please don't delete man files - rename them all to begin with, say matio-.
5. Add requires:
%if 0%{?fedora} 8
BuildRequires: texlive-latex
%else
BuildRequires: tetex-latex
%endif
and get rid of the doxygen stuff in the spec file.
6. Move PDF to builddir and add it in %doc.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC 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 #19 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 10:06:27 EDT --- ping 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 459675] Review Request: python-sybase - new package request
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459675 --- Comment #17 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 10:19:34 EDT --- This package itself seems now good. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468554] Review Request: barrage - Kill and destroy as many targets as possible within 3 minutes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468554 --- Comment #5 from Stefan Posdzich [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 10:28:43 EDT --- It was late yesterday :) Fixed the problems. Spec: http://cheekyboinc.spielen-unter-linux.de/barrage.spec SRPM: http://cheekyboinc.spielen-unter-linux.de/barrage-1.0.2-2.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468516] Review Request: verilator - A fast simulator of synthesizable Verilog HDL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468516 --- Comment #5 from Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 11:14:00 EDT --- I have incorporated Chitlesh's feedbackc into an updated spec file and have a new release 3 available for download from: http://www.brooks.nu/~lane/verilator.spec http://www.brooks.nu/~lane/verilator-3.680-3.fc10.src.rpm The previous release was 2 but was not documented in the changelog. I added the correct changelog entry to document releases 1, 2, and now 3. We have been using these releases at my work, thus I do not want to reset to 1 or it will cause problems for our users. I have built and tested this new release 3 on our project regression test suite at work on F10 rawhide, F8, and Centos 5.2. Lane -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 435015] Review Request: gpp4 - LGPL CCP4 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=435015 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Summary|Review Request: libGPP4 - |Review Request: gpp4 - LGPL |LGPL CCP4 library |CCP4 library Alias|libGPP4 |gpp4 Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #16 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 11:48:42 EDT --- Some notes ? License - License tag can be okay with LGPLv2 as README file declares so, however all files under src/ directories are actually under LGPLv2+. Would you ask upstream about this? (as it is okay with LGPLv2, this is not a blocker) * Source tarball - The tarball in the srpm differs from what I could download from the URL written as %SOURCE -- 514623 2008-06-10 05:21 gpp4-1.0.4-9.fc10.src/gpp4-1.0.4.tar.gz 498933 2007-09-03 00:00 orig/gpp4-1.0.4.tar.gz 48931781425a5b79a8255ebefaed24b3 orig/gpp4-1.0.4.tar.gz 7494566588545eb167b1c4c6e486cdf4 gpp4-1.0.4-9.fc10.src/gpp4-1.0.4.tar.gz -- * Linkage error - rpmlint shows -- gpp4.i386: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libgpp4.so.0.0.0 sincos gpp4.i386: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libgpp4.so.0.0.0 sqrt gpp4.i386: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libgpp4.so.0.0.0 rintf gpp4.i386: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libgpp4.so.0.0.0 lrint -- For packages providing -devel subpackage these rpmlint warnings cannot be allowed because these will cause linkage error when using these libraries. I guess linking to libm.so (-lm) will remove these warnings. Note: You can use rpmlint also for installed rpms like: $ rpmlint gpp4 which will show you these warnings. * Duplicate documents - Generally there is no need to include a document file as %doc to both main and -devel packages. * Timestamps -- make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install='install -p' -- - This should be INSTALL='install -p'. ? Another rpmlint issue -- gpp4-devel.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gpp4-devel-1.0.4/doc/latex/csym_f_page.tex -- - Well it may be preferable to convert this file to UTF-8, however I am not sure if tex supports UTF-8 tex file (at least it is well-known that platex does not support Japanese UTF-8 tex files...) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468597] New: Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468597 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine library 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.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/rubygem-ferret.spec SRPM URL: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f9/SRPMS/rubygem-ferret-0.11.6-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: Full-featured text search engine library $ rpmlint /home/jmeeuwen/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/rubygem-ferret-0.11.6-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm rubygem-ferret.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/ferret-0.11.6/lib/ferret_ext.so 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint /home/jmeeuwen/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/rubygem-ferret-devel-0.11.6-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm rubygem-ferret-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint /home/jmeeuwen/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/rubygem-ferret-debuginfo-0.11.6-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Seems obvious to me -devel does not need documentation separately from the base package, and I'm not sure what the no-soname is about and how to patch it given http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Common_Rpmlint_Issues#no-soname and that this is a rubygem... koji scratch builds: - dist-f8-updates-candidate: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=904323 - dist-f9-updates-candidate: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=904328 - dist-f10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=904333 - dist-f11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=904338 Note that the %files section uses absolute paths and no macros because for some weird reason the macros would not work -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468597] Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine 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=468597 --- Comment #1 from Jeroen van Meeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 12:32:11 EDT --- New SPEC: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/rubygem-ferret.spec New SRPM: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f9/SRPMS/rubygem-ferret-0.11.6-2.fc9.src.rpm rpmlint now silent better use of macros -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468597] Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine 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=468597 S.A. Hartsuiker [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468597] Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine 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=468597 --- Comment #2 from S.A. Hartsuiker [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 13:07:40 EDT --- RPM Lint: quiet Package name: ok Spec file: ok License: MIT Actual License: MIT %doc License: MIT-LICENSE file (see below) Spec file language: ok Spec file readable: ok Upstream source vs. used tarball: ok (md5: 928b6f90c61593059d8668dc70ebf337) Compile and Build: - F-8: ok - F-9: ok - F-10: ok - rawhide: ok - EL-5: n/a Applicable Package Guidelines: ok Locales: n/a Shared libs: ok Relocatable: no Directory and file ownership: ok No duplicate files in %files: ok File Permissions: ok Macro usage: ok Code vs. Content: ok (Large) Documentation: n/a %doc affecting runtime: ok Header files in -devel package: n/a Static Libraries in -static package: n/a pkgconfig Requires: n/a Library files: ok Devel requires base package: n/a .la libtool archives: n/a Duplicate ownership of files/directories: ok Remove BuildRoot: ok UTF-8 filenames: ok You forgot to package the MIT-LICENSE file. Please include it as a %doc. Otherwise the package is ok now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468597] Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine 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=468597 --- Comment #3 from Jeroen van Meeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 13:11:21 EDT --- Crap, sorry for that. New SPEC: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/rubygem-ferret.spec New SRPM: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f9/SRPMS/rubygem-ferret-0.11.6-3.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468597] Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine 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=468597 --- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 13:20:08 EDT --- I cannot approve 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 468597] Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine 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=468597 --- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 13:19:22 EDT --- First of all, this is not gem -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468597] Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine 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=468597 Jeroen van Meeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Jeroen van Meeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 13:18:36 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: rubygem-ferret Short Description: Full-featured text search engine library Owners: kanarip Branches: EL-4 EL-5 F-8 F-9 devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226212] Merge Review: OpenIPMI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226212
Ville Skyttä [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from Ville Skyttä [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 13:16:46 EDT
---
Final few findings:
1) *.a should be dropped from -devel or otherwise treated as guidelines
suggest:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exclusion_of_Static_Libraries
2) $ desktop-file-validate openipmigui.desktop
openipmigui.desktop: error: line [Desktop Entry] ends with a space, but
looks like a group. The validation will continue, with the trailing spaces
ignored.
openipmigui.desktop: warning: key Encoding in group Desktop Entry is
deprecated
openipmigui.desktop: error: value Application;System for string list key
Categories in group Desktop Entry does not have a semicolon (';') as
trailing character
After fixing these, there's one more:
$ desktop-file-validate openipmigui.desktop
openipmigui.desktop: warning: value Application;System; for key Categories
in group Desktop Entry contains a deprecated value Application
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468597] Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine 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=468597 S.A. Hartsuiker [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from S.A. Hartsuiker [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 13:17:03 EDT --- ok, license file included now. package APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468604] New: Review Request: echolinux - Linux echolink client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: echolinux - Linux echolink client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468604 Summary: Review Request: echolinux - Linux echolink client Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/echolinux.spec SRPM URL: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/echolinux-0.17a-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: EchoLinux is a command line driven engine that performs all of the actions necessary to initiate sessions, accept connections and maintain connections with other echoLink users. It also handles the compression/decompression of the audio stream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459892] Review Request: rubygem-mocha - Mocking and stubbing 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=459892 --- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 13:30:40 EDT --- Why do you create gem by rake package instead of using gem file provided by upstream? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468556] Review Request: rubygem-cgi_multipart_eof_fix - Multipart EOF fix for mongrel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468556 --- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 13:39:12 EDT --- Please use Requires: rubygem(mongrel) instead of Requires: rubygem-mongrel. Making rubygem rpm package have Provides: rubygem(foo) is for this purpose: Ref: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#Perl_Requires_and_Provides -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468597] Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine 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=468597 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 468556] Review Request: rubygem-cgi_multipart_eof_fix - Multipart EOF fix for mongrel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468556 --- Comment #6 from Jeroen van Meeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 13:48:01 EDT --- fixed in the spec and srpm New SPEC: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/rubygem-cgi_multipart_eof_fix.spec New SRPM: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f9/SRPMS/rubygem-cgi_multipart_eof_fix-2.5.0-3.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459892] Review Request: rubygem-mocha - Mocking and stubbing 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=459892
--- Comment #9 from Jeroen van Meeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 13:53:02
EDT ---
I prefer using tarballs because they make the %doc available directly as
%doc README etcetera
which are then being put in /usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}/, rather then
putting the docs in some obscure %{geminstdir} (which should hold the program,
not the docs) or %{gemdir}/doc/ (which should have RDoc documentation, not
READMEs)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468597] Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine 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=468597 --- Comment #8 from Jeroen van Meeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 13:54:46 EDT --- Care to comment? Upstream provides a gem what makes you think this is not a gem? The installation instructions even indicate the program and libraries can be installed by using 'gem install ferret'... You got me confused. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459878] Review Request: genome - Package for the Genome Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459878 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 13:59:52 EDT --- Hello, Kevin: As the sponsor of Stefan would you re-review this package? IMO there are some issues left to fix on 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 468597] Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine 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=468597 --- Comment #9 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 14:04:28 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) Care to comment? Upstream provides a gem Then you must use the gem as the source what makes you think this is not a gem? Because _this package_ does not contain any gem. The installation instructions even indicate the program and libraries can be installed by using 'gem install ferret'... It is for people not using rpm system by installing this software by him/herself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 465601] Review Request: libnxml - C library for parsing, writing and creating XML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465601 Andreas Bierfert [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457955] Review Request: bonvenocf-fonts - BonvenoCF font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457955 Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review?, ||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||o.co.in) --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 14:03:25 EDT --- Ok, I'll take this review 1. Please do not use 69bonvenocf-fonts as package name. Use bonvenocf-fonts or cf-bonveno-fonts (cf-bonveno-fonts is probably better as it will give you a Crude Factory prefix to use with other Crude Factory fonts) 2. Please use install -dm 755 instead of mkdir as suggested by the official spec template 3. You can remove the for example comment 4. 69 is a bit low as fontconfig prefix, 64 is probably sufficient for a latin font 5. Use 1.1 as version since upstream provides a nicely versionned archive 6. Since upstream provides sfd sources, please build the ttf from source using fontforge. You have an example of sfd building in bug #467507 for example 7. the font is GPLv2 + font exception (cf README) 8. Why do you want to disable hinting for this font? 9. Why do you want to prepend en to the font? 10. Please reformat your xml files with xmllint --format before submission so they are nicely indented with the same rules as other font packages 11. When you've written fontconfig rules you're happy with it's always a good idea to send them upstream to be included in the font next releases 12. Please fine a way to add Barry Schwartz' name in the summary (flattering font designers is good for our interactions with them) 14. Please update http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BonvenoCF_font to remove the font from the wishlist (change the Catzgorization). You should not need packaging powers to do that, just a FAS account All in all, that's not too bad an attempt for a first font package. Fix all this, and I'll sponsor you if that's still needed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457947] Review Request: 69oldstandard-fonts - Old Standard Fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457947 Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #10 from Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 14:10:43 EDT --- Well, you really need to sed the sfd files too so the font name (as displayed in applications is not Old Standard but Old Standard SFD (or something like this) Appart from that both yours and Ankur's submissions clearly need more baking. Please work together or separately so we have something solid to review (the run of reviews I did today should provide good guidance, just look at them in the fedora-fonts-bugs-list archive -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 465750] Review Request: R-GeneR - R for genes and sequences analysis
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465750 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 14:19:47 EDT --- R-GeneR-2.11.1-3.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/R-GeneR-2.11.1-3.fc8 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468517] Review Request: saoimage - Utility for displaying astronomical images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468517 --- Comment #4 from Lubomir Rintel [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 14:20:06 EDT --- Thanks for the comments Mamoru! (In reply to comment #2) Created an attachment (id=321519) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=321519) [details] Comment for Patch2 Good catch. Will fix. Some notes for 1.35.1-1: * License - Well as far as I checked the whole code I only find codes under * license written in COPYING (Copyright only) * LGPLv2+ (e.g. fitsfile.c) So the license tag should be LGPLv2+. Also add some files to %doc which indicates LGPL license. Thanks, you seem to be right. Will be fixed in next revision. * Source origin - Would you write where you obtained %SOURCE3? I stole it :) Actually -- the logo is present in the source code (being the default picture to display). I grabbed this one from some random site and converted from gif, assuming it's no problem to use it given it's already included in the source code anyways. * BuildRequires - In your srpm BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils is missing (while the spec file on the URL you posted here has it) I must have uploaded some older version by mistake. I will ensure it is present in next revision. * %install script - What is the line below for? - install -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/dev Will remove it. It was used in on of earlier revisions, since the make install creates some links in /dev by default. * XML file - I guess this should be installed under %_datadir/mime/packages Right. Thanks for noticing that. * Directory ownership issue - The directory %_datadir/mime must not be owned by this package. Why? It does not include shared-mime-info or any other package that would require it in its dependency chain. By the way: open error: No such file or directory ERROR: unable to open /dev/imt1o Error: No remote input possible. This is OK since we do not ship IRAF. Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. This does not happen in my el5. Could you please tell me which Fedora version do you use? 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 465750] Review Request: R-GeneR - R for genes and sequences analysis
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465750 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 14:19:50 EDT --- R-GeneR-2.11.1-5.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/R-GeneR-2.11.1-5.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468597] Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine 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=468597 --- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 14:27:39 EDT --- Some notes: - As ext/posh.c is under BSD, the license tag must be MIT and BSD (we have to actually check the licenses of all codes, not just license text) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468597] Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine 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=468597 --- Comment #11 from Jeroen van Meeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 14:35:16 EDT --- OK, this is why the package ended up being what it is right now: Attempt #1: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=904055 Attempt #2: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=904077 Attempt #3: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=904137 Attempt #4: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=904313 Attempt #5 (current package, successful): https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=904318 The first 4 attempts use .gem and gem install from upstream's source code .tgz, but fail during build although running them through mock locally would succeed. Since I wasn't able to determine how to package the software 1) according to package guidelines, 2) with debuginfo, 3) without -devel ending up in the base package, 4) without /usr/lib/rpm/check-buildroot borking over binaries that matched the buildroot, I went with packaging it the way that I did (Attempt #5). (In reply to comment #9) (In reply to comment #8) Care to comment? Upstream provides a gem Then you must use the gem as the source This one is new for me... can you elaborate on the fact that if it's a gem, you must use the upstream provided gem? I can't seem to find the guidelines saying that I should. Thanks in advance! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456527] Review Request: gentium-basic-fonts - Gentium Basic Font Family
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456527 --- Comment #8 from Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 14:42:49 EDT --- also please rename the package sil-gentium-basic-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 468597] Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine 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=468597 --- Comment #12 from Jeroen van Meeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 14:43:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) Some notes: - As ext/posh.c is under BSD, the license tag must be MIT and BSD (we have to actually check the licenses of all codes, not just license text) I found GPLv2+ too in ext/q_parser.c. Pending other comments, I'll push these changes when we're 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 468517] Review Request: saoimage - Utility for displaying astronomical images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468517 --- Comment #5 from Lubomir Rintel [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 14:45:21 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) By the way it may be good to check implicit function declaration by adding -Werror-implicit-function-declaration: This sounds worthwhile. Due to the big amount of functions without prototypes (there's at least one in vast majority of files) this would require substantial effort. For now I included headers for functions covered by FORTIFY_SOURCE where they were missing and I'll add prototypes for the rest if this becomes mandatory part of packaging guidelines. (I encourage you to advocate for that) New package: SPEC: http://netbsd.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/saoimage.spec SRPM: http://netbsd.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/saoimage-1.35.1-2.el5.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 468517] Review Request: saoimage - Utility for displaying astronomical images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468517 --- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 14:58:10 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) Thanks for the comments Mamoru! * Source origin - Would you write where you obtained %SOURCE3? I stole it :) Actually -- the logo is present in the source code (being the default picture to display). I grabbed this one from some random site and converted from gif, assuming it's no problem to use it given it's already included in the source code anyways. Okay, I trust you then. * Directory ownership issue - The directory %_datadir/mime must not be owned by this package. Why? It does not include shared-mime-info or any other package that would require it in its dependency chain. Actually currently only shared-mime-info package owns this directory on my system. The same discussion can also be applied to %_datadir/icons/hicolor. Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. This does not happen in my el5. Could you please tell me which Fedora version do you use? Thanks! I use F-10 i386. segv still occurs with -2 srpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468517] Review Request: saoimage - Utility for displaying astronomical images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468517 Marek Mahut [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468597] Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine 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=468597 --- Comment #14 from S.A. Hartsuiker [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 15:33:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) Some notes: - As ext/posh.c is under BSD, the license tag must be MIT and BSD (we have to actually check the licenses of all codes, not just license text) Hmm, I had thought that the MIT license, so I didn't differentiate 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 468597] Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine 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=468597 --- Comment #13 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 15:33:10 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) Attempt #5 (current package, successful): https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=904318 I will look at this after I wake up again. (In reply to comment #9) (In reply to comment #8) Care to comment? Upstream provides a gem Then you must use the gem as the source This one is new for me... can you elaborate on the fact that if it's a gem, you must use the upstream provided gem? I can't seem to find the guidelines saying that I should. Please recheck this. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Ruby_Gems - The Source of the package must be the full URL to the released Gem archive; the version of the package must be the Gem's version (In reply to comment #12) I found GPLv2+ too in ext/q_parser.c. Pending other comments, I'll push these changes when we're done. Please also check Bison exception mentioned in the file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468597] Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine 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=468597 --- Comment #15 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 15:40:08 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) (In reply to comment #11) Attempt #5 (current package, successful): https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=904318 I will look at this after I wake up again. Ah, this one is current srpm... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467655] Review Request: yafaray - a raytracer for Blender.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467655
--- Comment #15 from Jochen Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 15:52:50
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Just do:
cd ~/.blender/scripts
ln -s /usr/share/blender/scripts/_yafrayinterface.so .
ln -s /usr/share/blender/scripts/_yafqt.so .
and it should work with the official Fedora version.
OK, I see the issue, I will create a future version of blender, which should
fix this issue. But in may be nice, if you may put the .so files into
%{_libdir}/blender so we can create multilib aware packages without any
trouble.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467655] Review Request: yafaray - a raytracer for Blender.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467655
--- Comment #16 from Jochen Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 15:57:13
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
- %{datadir}/blender/scripts is owned by the blender package.
These scripts are just for the integration between blender and yafaray.
Yes, thats is okay, but if you wrote %{datadir}/blender/scripts in the %files
stanza, you calims ownership of this directory, which is not right. you should
wrote something like %{datadir}/blender/scripts/* or anything else to put
files into this directory without calming wonership.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468597] Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine 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=468597 Jeroen van Meeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #16 from Jeroen van Meeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 16:42:10 EDT --- https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=904080name=build.log uses the tgz to build the gem and then install the gem, but has left-over .o files installed https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=904141name=build.log is the next attempt and cleans out those .o files, but the ext/ferret_ext.so.debug file makes the rpm build bork nonetheless. This is one of the main reasons why I couldn't find a way to use or build and then use the gem itself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467655] Review Request: yafaray - a raytracer for Blender.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467655
--- Comment #17 from Jochen Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 16:49:17
EDT ---
ON rawhide I have create a blender package - release 2.48a-2 - which create
symlinks from %{_libdir}/blender/scripts to ~/.blender/.scripts for
executables. This should avoids the steps descriped in comment #13.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468517] Review Request: saoimage - Utility for displaying astronomical images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468517 --- Comment #7 from Lubomir Rintel [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 17:04:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) (In reply to comment #4) * Directory ownership issue - The directory %_datadir/mime must not be owned by this package. Why? It does not include shared-mime-info or any other package that would require it in its dependency chain. Actually currently only shared-mime-info package owns this directory on my system. The same discussion can also be applied to %_datadir/icons/hicolor. I quite don't understand if you still insist on not owning the package. In case yes, I don't see what would we gain here, except for having a slight possibility of the package leaving a stale unowned directory. Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. This does not happen in my el5. Could you please tell me which Fedora version do you use? Thanks! I use F-10 i386. segv still occurs with -2 srpm. Thanks. I reproduced it in a mock chroot and think I have fixed it in new package: SPEC: http://netbsd.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/saoimage.spec SRPM: http://netbsd.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/saoimage-1.35.1-3.el5.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 468597] Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine 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=468597 --- Comment #17 from Jeroen van Meeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 17:18:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) (In reply to comment #12) I found GPLv2+ too in ext/q_parser.c. Pending other comments, I'll push these changes when we're done. Please also check Bison exception mentioned in the file. The Bison exception is a may remove (at your option) which I'm not sure makes sense; how should I note this in the RPM License tag if it should be included in the RPM License tag? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 445010] Review Request: xvarstar - an astronomical program used for searching GCVS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445010 Lubomir Rintel [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #21 from Lubomir Rintel [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 17:57:27 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 461897] Review Request: opticalraytracer - OpticalRayTracer is a Linux utility that analyzes systems of lenses
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461897 Lubomir Rintel [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 445010] Review Request: xvarstar - an astronomical program used for searching GCVS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445010 Marek Mahut [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #22 from Marek Mahut [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 18:02:54 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: xvarstar Short Description: an astronomical program used for searching GCVS Owners: mmahut Branches: F-9, EL-5 Cvsextras Commits: yes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226663] Merge Review: ypbind
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226663
--- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 18:07:21 EDT
---
Thanks for working on this. I checked out the current devel branch; it builds
fine; rpmlint says:
ypbind.src: W: strange-permission ypbind.init 0755
I don't understand why rpmlint is complaining here. This seems fine to me.
ypbind.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.20.4-9
['3:1.20.4-9.fc10', '3:1.20.4-9']
Again, this seems quite OK. I'm guessing that it is complaining about not
seeing the epoch in the changelog version, but don't think we generally add it
there.
So all of that looks bogus. I assume that the OTHER_YPBIND_OPTS thing is
something to be set in /etc/sysconfig/network instead of being edited into the
initscript.
The changes to the package look good; packaging-wise I have no complaints.
It's a bit odd seeing %{PACKAGE_VERSION} in the spec instead of %{version};
I've never seen it before but it seems to work well enough.
Any idea why autoreconf is run? There's been a bunch of discussion about
whether this should ever be run in a package, and while I don't fully
understand that discussion, I do think it would be good to ensure that the
autoreconf call is really needed and to add comments to the spec as
appropriate. I note that rpmdiff shows only timestamp differences between a
build that calls autoreconf and one that doesn't.
As for the initscript patch in comment #7, it seems correct on its face but
it's a bit tough to read with only a non-context diff and I'm not really an
expert with the whole LSB init comment block thing anyway. Unfortunately I no
longer have any vestige of my NIS infrastructure around so I can't test this at
all.
So really the only open issue I see is the autoreconf thing.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461400] Review Request: cherokee - Flexible and Fast Webserver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461400 --- Comment #14 from Jeroen van Meeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 18:40:08 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 467655] Review Request: yafaray - a raytracer for Blender.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467655
--- Comment #18 from Paulo Roma Cavalcanti [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26
19:00:09 EDT ---
I changed the license to LGPLv2+
and I am using %{_datadir}/blender/scripts/*
for the blender-yafaray package.
It is not clear for me if we should keep
_yafrayinterface.so and _yafqt.so
in blender's scripts directory or in %{_libdir}/blender, as
Jochen suggested. Either way is fine for me.
Anyway, I can not go any further from here, because I am still being
sponsored. Someone has to take over and try to build the package in koji.
The links (spec and srpm) were updated, and ATrpms is up again.
Spec URL: http://orion.lcg.ufrj.br/RPMS/SPECS/yafaray.spec
http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/specs/yafaray.spec
SRPM URL: http://orion.lcg.ufrj.br/RPMS/src/yafaray-0.1.0-5.fc8.src.rpm
http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/srpms/yafaray-0.1.0-5.fc8.src.rpm
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 468631] Review Request: libgarmin - C library to parse and use Garmin image files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468631 Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||461849 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||468631 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468631] New: Review Request: libgarmin - C library to parse and use Garmin image files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: libgarmin - C library to parse and use Garmin image files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468631 Summary: Review Request: libgarmin - C library to parse and use Garmin image files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/libgarmin.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/libgarmin-0-0.1.20081026svn.fc9.src.rpm URL: http://libgarmin.sourceforge.net/ Description: Libgarmin is an in C written library for Garmin image format maps. The library can be used to parse Garmin image files. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=904966 [EMAIL PROTECTED] SRPMS]$ rpmlint -i libgarmin* 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [EMAIL PROTECTED] i386]$ rpmlint libgarmin* 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 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 Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] | |ess.net)| --- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 19:18:26 EDT --- Review request for libgarmin: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468631 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457947] Review Request: 69oldstandard-fonts - Old Standard Fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457947 Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #11 from Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 20:01:58 EDT --- BTW if you need to see an example of programmaticaly changing a font name at build time, just check how DejaVu does it for DejaVu LGC in its build scripts -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468579] Review Request: PyQuante - Python Quantum Chemistry
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468579 Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 20:02:21 EDT --- Only some quick comment about the rpmlint output and your spec file... Spec file: Detail about packaging python stuff: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python Name: PyQuante - The name of your package should be lower case https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Case_Sensitivity BuildRequires - 'BuildRequires: python' is missing % files - Please follow the guidelines https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#System_Architecture %changelog - E mail address is missing https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs rpmlint output: (In reply to comment #0) PyQuante.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/Minimizers.py 0644 You can add something like 'find *.py -type f | xargs chmod a+x' to fix this. PyQuante.x86_64: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/PyQuante/pressure.py If you have to remove DOS line endings in this file 'sed -i 's/\r$//' file.py' PyQuante.x86_64: W: invalid-license Modified BSD PyQuante-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license Modified BSD For a valid license for Fedora, please take a look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468562] Review Request: basket - Taking care of your ideas
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468562 Itamar Reis Peixoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Alias||basket -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468633] New: Review Request: wput - A utility for uploading files or whole directories to remote ftp-servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: wput - A utility for uploading files or whole directories to remote ftp-servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468633 Summary: Review Request: wput - A utility for uploading files or whole directories to remote ftp-servers 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://ispbrasil.com.br/wput/wput.spec SRPM URL: http://ispbrasil.com.br/wput/wput-0.6.1-1.0.fc9.src.rpm Description: wput is a command-line ftp-client that looks like wget but instead of downloading, uploads files or whole directories to remote ftp-servers. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468633] Review Request: wput - A utility for uploading files or whole directories to remote ftp-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=468633 Itamar Reis Peixoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||wput -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468633] Review Request: wput - A utility for uploading files or whole directories to remote ftp-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=468633 Itamar Reis Peixoto [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 468189] Review Request: rear - Relax and Recovery (disaster recovery 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=468189 Itamar Reis Peixoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Alias||rear -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468516] Review Request: verilator - A fast simulator of synthesizable Verilog HDL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468516 Itamar Reis Peixoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Alias||verilator -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 450164] Review Request: ace-tao - The ADAPTIVE Communication Environment (ACE) and The ACE ORB (TAO)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450164 --- Comment #21 from Ken Sedgwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 20:58:10 EDT --- The following are not packaged: * ASNMP/asnmp/address.cppMIT * TAO/CIAO/tools/IDL3_to_IDL2/be_extern.h LICENSE-A * TAO/TAO_IDL/contrib/mcpp/directive.cpp MIT * contrib/minizip/zip.hzlib * contrib/utility/Example/ExH/BadCast/bad_cast.cpp zlib The following are packaged: * TAO/TAO_IDL/be_include/be_extern.h (LICENSE-A) Included in the debuginfo package. Code which includes this is packaged in tao-devel. * TAO/TAO_IDL/driver/drv_args.cpp (LICENSE-A) Linked into tao_idl. * TAO/TAO_IDL/fe/y.tab.hGPLv2+ (Bison output) Linked into libTAO_IDL_FE.so. Code which includes this is packaged in tao-devel. But this is Bison output and contains the following: /* As a special exception, when this file is copied by Bison into a Bison output file, you may use that output file without restriction. This special exception was added by the Free Software Foundation in version 1.24 of Bison. */ * TAO/orbsvcs/orbsvcs/AV/RTCP.cpp BSD with advertising Ships in tao package in libTAO_AV.so * ace/Svc_Conf_y.cppGPLv2+ (Bison output) Ships in ace package in libACE.so Contains the following: /* As a special exception, you may create a larger work that contains part or all of the Bison parser skeleton and distribute that work under terms of your choice, so long as that work isn't itself a parser generator using the skeleton or a modified version thereof as a parser skeleton. Alternatively, if you modify or redistribute the parser skeleton itself, you may (at your option) remove this special exception, which will cause the skeleton and the resulting Bison output files to be licensed under the GNU General Public License without this special exception. * apps/gperf/src/Gen_Perf.h GPLv2+ Ships in ace-devel. Linked into /usr/bin/ace_gperf. I'm a little unclear on the next steps, please advise. Ken -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468643] New: Review Request: perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction - Expose PL_dirty
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction - Expose PL_dirty https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468643 Summary: Review Request: perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction - Expose PL_dirty Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Devel-GlobalDestruction 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 SRPM URL: http://fedora.biggerontheinside.net/review/perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction-0.02-1.fc9.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://fedora.biggerontheinside.net/review/perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction.spec Description: Perl's global destruction is a little tricky to deal with WRT finalizers because its not ordered and objects can sometimes disappear. Writing defensive destructors is hard and annoying, and usually if global destruction is happenning you only need the destructors that free up non process local resources to actually execute. For these constructors you can avoid the mess by simply bailing out if global destruction is in effect. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468643] Review Request: perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction - Expose PL_dirty
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468643 --- Comment #1 from Chris Weyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 22:00:32 EDT --- This package is a new requirement of Class::MOP. Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=905263 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468631] Review Request: libgarmin - C library to parse and use Garmin image files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468631 Ralf Corsepius [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #1 from Ralf Corsepius [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 22:17:01 EDT --- Just a couple of remarks: (In reply to comment #0) [EMAIL PROTECTED] i386]$ rpmlint libgarmin* 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Interesting, rpmlint is worse than I had thought:) MUSTFIX - libgarmin.a is missing from *-devel Without, this *-devel rpm is widely useless. - package doesn't support shared libraries = Must add *-static magic to *-devel - Wrong License: Your spec says: License:GPLv2+ Several files (e.g. libgarmin.h and COPYING) inside of the sources say: GPLv2 *only*. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 435016] Review Request: mmdb - MMDB coordinate 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=435016 Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #20 from Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 22:37:19 EDT --- OK, the tarball matches what I get from the upstream web site now. rpmlint has grown a new complaint: mmdb.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libmmdb.so.0.0.0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] I didn't see this last time, which implies that either you had fixed the two places where exit() is called in the your modified tarball or that rpmlint has grown this complaint recently. There was an rpmlint update three days ago so that might be it. In any case, this is a rather odd thing for a shared library to do; I'd expect abnormal exits to call abort() instead, assuming they actually need to stop program execution. Obviously you wouldn't expect any normal exits from library code, but upstream software authors often do rather dumb things. I don't really see this as a blocker, however; it's more something that should be reported as a bug upstream. In any case, the issues I raised earlier are fixed, and the above isn't a blocker, I'd say we're done. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468597] Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine 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=468597 --- Comment #19 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 23:15:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #18) Example B (spec file by sseago) http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/rubygem-mongrel/devel/rubygem-mongrel.spec?view=co(In reply to comment #17) Correct URL: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/rubygem-mongrel/devel/rubygem-mongrel.spec?view=co -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468597] Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine 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=468597 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Comment #18 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-26 23:14:09 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16) https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=904080name=build.log uses the tgz to build the gem and then install the gem, but has left-over .o files installed https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=904141name=build.log is the next attempt and cleans out those .o files, but the ext/ferret_ext.so.debug file makes the rpm build bork nonetheless. This is one of the main reasons why I couldn't find a way to use or build and then use the gem itself. Sorry, however other maintainer handles this. Please fix this. Example A (my case) http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/rubygem-zoom/devel/rubygem-zoom.spec?view=co Example B (spec file by sseago) http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/rubygem-mongrel/devel/rubygem-mongrel.spec?view=co(In reply to comment #17) (In reply to comment #13) (In reply to comment #12) I found GPLv2+ too in ext/q_parser.c. Pending other comments, I'll push these changes when we're done. Please also check Bison exception mentioned in the file. The Bison exception is a may remove (at your option) which I'm not sure makes sense; how should I note this in the RPM License tag if it should be included in the RPM License tag? Simply use License: MIT and BSD. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
