[Bug 471373] Review Request: rmanage - Remotely monitoring machines on network

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471373





--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 
03:20:41 EDT ---
rmanage-0.1.5-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rmanage-0.1.5-2.fc10

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 471522] Review Request: otl - OTL library for database connections and queries

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471522





--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 
05:55:19 EDT ---
otl-4.0.176-5.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository.  If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 226663] Merge Review: ypbind

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly 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 #9 from Vitezslav Crhonek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 05:56:39 
EDT ---
To make this complete:

(In reply to comment #8)
> 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.

Seems fine to me too.

> 
>   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.

I'll add epoch to changelog entries. I'm not sure if this must be, but it's
missing only last few commits, so let rpmlint be happy:)

> 
> 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.

You're right, configuration should be done in /etc/sysconfig/network (and this
file is then included in init script).

> 
> 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.

Interesting, I missed it... I'll change it to %{version}, I have no knowledge
of %{PACKAGE_VERSION}. %{version} is common, let's use it.

> 
> 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.

autoreconf is used to generate new configure script and Makefile when
configure.in/.ac, Makefile.in files are changed (patched). There's no patch
changing it at the moment (one patch is changing variable in "po" directory,
this is only one source of unsureness for me), so autoreconf call is IMHO not
necessary. autoconf and automake in BuildRequires is then not necessary too.
I'll discuss it rather yet, but it seems to be redundant.

Fedora relate info is here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/AutoConf

> 
> 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.

OK, there's open bugzilla on init script issue, so I think there's no need to
resolve it here.

> 
> 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 471809] Review Request: gnome-gmail-notifier - A simple application that monitors Gmail inboxes

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471809


Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE




-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 467764] Review Request: python-twitter - A python wrapper around the Twitter API

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467764


Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE




-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 467764] Review Request: python-twitter - A python wrapper around the Twitter API

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467764





--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 
06:02:43 EDT ---
python-twitter-0.5-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository.  If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 470502] Review Request: kde-plasma-runcommand - Simple plasmoid to run commands without using terminal or KRunner

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470502





--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 
06:04:31 EDT ---
kde-plasma-runcommand-0.7-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable
repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 470502] Review Request: kde-plasma-runcommand - Simple plasmoid to run commands without using terminal or KRunner

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470502


Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE




-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 467764] Review Request: python-twitter - A python wrapper around the Twitter API

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467764





--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 
05:57:08 EDT ---
python-twitter-0.5-1.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository.  If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 469548] Review Request: ap-utils - Configure and monitor Wireless Access Points

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469548


Alec Leamas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]




--- Comment #1 from Alec Leamas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 05:17:29 EDT ---
Hi!

I promised to make yet another review...

Summary: OK besides some missing document files. A question mark on
all the compiler warnigs when building, though.


MUST stuff:
rpmlint must be run on every package...
  -  OK (No errors or warnings on srpm or spec file.)

The package must be named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines .
   - OK

The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, 
   - OK

The package must meet the  Packaging Guidelines .
   - OK.

The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license...
   - OK

The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
   - OK (some files have GPLv+ notices, but GPLv2 is the common denominator).

The text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc
   - OK

The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
   - OK

The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source
   - OK (ebdb2a03302648c939ac965617de2889)

The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms.
   - OK, on my Fedora 9/X86_64 box. Lots of compiler warnings " warning: 
 pointer targets in assignment differ in signedness" while building."
 for constructs with  a short and a literal #define int.
 Seems acceptable to me. (Upstream report?)

All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
   - OK (since mock is OK, see below)

The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
   - OK

Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files 
   - NA

If the package is designed to be relocatable...
   - NA

A package must own all directories that it creates
   - NOK. The %doc section lists  Documentation/*.html Documentation/FAQ
 but these are not present at all in the generated RPM.

A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
   - OK

Permissions on files must be set properly
   - OK

Each package must have a %clean section, rm -rf %{buildroot} 
   - OK

Each package must consistently use macros...
   - OK

The package must contain code, or permissable content.
   - OK

Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage
   - TBD (Havn't seen those HTML files yet).

If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present
   - OK 

Header files must be in a -devel package.
   - NA

Static libraries must be in a -static package.
   - NA

Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must...
   - NA

If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1
   - NA

If a package contains library files with a suffix...
   - NA

devel packages must require the base package using...
   - NA

Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
   - OK

Packages containing GUI applications...
   - NA (ncurses apps are not considered being graphical)

Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
   - OK 

At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
   - OK

All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
   - OK

SHOULD 

   - The upstream license file (GPLv2) is present.
   - Localized descriptions are not available what I can see.
   - Builds OK in mock, on a Fedora-9/x86_64 configuration
   - There are no scriptlets.
   - All apps works to the point of a help message or an initial
 ncurses screen.
   - There are no subpackages, pkgconfig  .pc file or file deps.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 469273] Review Request: quickfix - development library for FIX based applications

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469273





--- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 
05:57:17 EDT ---
quickfix-1.12.4-6.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository.  If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 471809] Review Request: gnome-gmail-notifier - A simple application that monitors Gmail inboxes

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471809





--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 
05:57:54 EDT ---
gnome-gmail-notifier-0.9.4-3.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable
repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 459387] Review Request: libtool2 - The GNU Portable Library Tool v2

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459387


Karsten Hopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution||WONTFIX




--- Comment #9 from Karsten Hopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 06:35:58 EDT 
---
no, I'll close it. The libtool-2 package in Rawhide uses the spec file from
libtool-1.5 which already had a review AFAIK.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 471829] Review Request: log4cxx - Log4cxx - a port to C++ of the Log4j project

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471829


Hayden James <[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 459637] Review Request: svxlink - Repeater controller and EchoLink (simplex or repeater)

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459637





--- Comment #3 from Lucian Langa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 08:02:53 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> --- Compiling SpanDtmfDecoder.cpp...
> /usr/include/spandsp/dtmf.h: In member function 'virtual bool
> SpanDtmfDecoder::initialize()':
> /usr/include/spandsp/dtmf.h:228: error: too few arguments to function 'void
> dtmf_rx_parms(dtmf_rx_state_t*, int, int, int, int)'
> SpanDtmfDecoder.cpp:169: error: at this point in file
Patch2 was not applied. Fixed.


> Also, the build system obscures the compiler calls, but I'm not sure I see any
> place that would incorporate the regular Fedora compiler flags.  There's no
> mention of %{optflags} or $RPM_OPT_FLAGS in the spec and there's no configure
> script to call.
Fixed.


A few notes:

rpmlint
libasync.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libasyncaudio-0.16.1.so
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
libasync.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libasynccpp-0.16.1.so
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
libasync-devel.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/libasyncaudio-0.16.1.so [EMAIL PROTECTED]
libasync-devel.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/libasynccpp-0.16.1.so [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not entirely sure but I think it safe.
>From what I could see there are 2 calls both internal error handling.
I will address this upstream anyway.


libasync.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
libasync-devel.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
I am unable to fix, package does not use libtool and passing -Wl,-as-needed
won't work (fails with undefined reference)
I think the above are harmless.

new version:
http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/svxlink.spec
http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/svxlink-080730-3.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 468539] Review Request: sugar-jukebox - Media player activity for Sugar

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468539


Bryan Kearney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Flag||fedora-review?




--- Comment #7 from Bryan Kearney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 08:31:47 EDT 
---
  OK - Package name
  OK - License info is accurate
  OK - License tag is correct and licenses are approved
  OK - License files are installed as %doc
  OK - Specfile name
  OK - Specfile is legible
  OK - No prebuilt binaries included
  OK - BuildRoot value (one of the recommended values)
  OK - PreReq not used
  XX - Source md5sum matches upstream

 These do not match, and upstream is "hidden". Please
 change to a checkout from source repo.

  OK - No hardcoded pathnames
  OK - Package owns all the files it installs
  OK - 'Requires' create needed unowned directories
  OK - Package builds successfully on i386 and x86_64 (mock)
  OK - BuildRequires sufficient
  OK - File permissions set properly
  OK - Macro usage is consistent
  OK - rpmlint is silent
 Warnings are OK


I have not installed it onto a blank sugar install yet, but have you verified
all the imports are in the Requires?
Please resolve the source code and I will re-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 468604] Review Request: echolinux - Linux echolink client

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468604





--- Comment #2 from Lucian Langa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 08:42:07 EDT 
---
The name of the license is gpl.txt (included in the package).
The rest of the files (not all of them) have the following header:

/*

This is an alpha release of echlinux.

Copyright 2002 Jeff Pierce wd4nmq.

This software is covered by the included GNU Public License, GPL.

$Log$

/

(In reply to comment #1)
> However, there is no accompanying COPYRIGHT file anywhere in the tarball.  I
> think that without that, we have no rights to use or distribute this 
> software. 

> 
> The above copyright issue and the libgsm.a thing make me seriously doubt that
> this software is acceptable for Fedora.
gsm.h comes from package gsm (hence the header). I could probably modify the
include.

> Also, do you know what libgsm.a is?  It looks to me as if it is simply linked
> into the final application.
Some idiotic way of linking against a certain version of libgsm.
See my Patch2.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 470547] Review Request: SEMI - MIME rendering library for Emacs

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470547





--- Comment #6 from Vitaly Mayatskikh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 08:44:48 
EDT ---
Thanks for your comments, Alec!

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 455137] Review Request: soundmodem - Soundcard Packet Radio Modem

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455137





--- Comment #4 from Lucian Langa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 09:22:08 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I do not know what that means.  Maybe the configure script was simply 
> generated
> by a really old autotools version?
I've used autotools to update.

new ver:
http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/soundmodem.spec
http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/soundmodem-0.10-3.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 468579] Review Request: PyQuante - Python Quantum Chemistry

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly 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





--- Comment #6 from Jussi Lehtola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 09:45:39 EDT 
---
Fixed license tag to BSD (the license is almost the same as New BSD 3 clause
license, only difference is

BSD:
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS AS IS

PyQuante:
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS AS IS


I don't think there's anything wrong with the %files section, since the package
doesn't end up owning any directories or files it shouldn't.


http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/PyQuante.spec
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/PyQuante-1.6.1-3.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 472525] New: Review Request: kio_sysinfo - KIO slave which shows basic system information

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: kio_sysinfo - KIO slave which shows basic system 
information

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472525

   Summary: Review Request: kio_sysinfo - KIO slave which shows
basic system information
   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://rezza.hofyland.cz/fedora/packages/kio_sysinfo/kio_sysinfo.spec
SRPM URL:
http://rezza.hofyland.cz/fedora/packages/kio_sysinfo/kio_sysinfo-20081121-1.fc9.src.rpm
Description: This is a sysinfo:/ KIO slave, which shows basic system
information often requested by users.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 472525] Review Request: kio_sysinfo - KIO slave which shows basic system information

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472525


Jaroslav Reznik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||[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 468539] Review Request: sugar-jukebox - Media player activity for Sugar

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468539





--- Comment #8 from Bryan Kearney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 10:22:05 EDT 
---
I was able to install it, and "run" it. But.. it did not do anything. Is there
a way for me to verify it is working?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 471829] Review Request: log4cxx - Log4cxx - a port to C++ of the Log4j project

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471829


Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|177841  |




-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 471527] Review Request: snmp++ - SNMP C++ library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471527


Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Summary|Review Request: SNMP++ -|Review Request: snmp++ -
   |SNMP C++ library|SNMP C++ library
   Flag||fedora-review+




--- Comment #17 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 11:29:48 EDT 
---
Okay.

---
This package (snmp++) is APROVED by mtasaka
---

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 468414] Review Request: hamcrest - Hamcrest matcher object framework

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468414


David Walluck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |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 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471915





--- Comment #11 from David Walluck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 11:32:32 EDT 
---
Spec URL: 
SRPM URL: 

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 457926] Review Request: python-wikimarkup - Python module to format text to Mediawiki syntax

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457926





--- Comment #24 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 11:53:10 EDT 
---
Please submit push requests for F-10/9/8 on bodhi:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 457926] Review Request: python-wikimarkup - Python module to format text to Mediawiki syntax

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457926





--- Comment #25 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 11:54:45 EDT 
---
Please submit push requests for F-10/9/8 on bodhi:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 457926] Review Request: python-wikimarkup - Python module to format text to Mediawiki syntax

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457926





--- Comment #26 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 11:55:10 EDT 
---
Sorry for duplicate comments...

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 459010] Review request: pystatgrab - Python bindings for libstatgrab

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459010





--- Comment #18 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 11:55:17 EDT 
---
Please submit push requests for F-10/9/8 on bodhi:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 472542] New: Review Request: afuse - An automounter implemented with FUSE

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: afuse - An automounter implemented with FUSE

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472542

   Summary: Review Request: afuse - An automounter implemented
with FUSE
   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.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/afuse.spec
SRPM URL:
http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/afuse-0.2-1.fc10.src.rpm
Description: 
Afuse is an automounting file system implemented in user-space using FUSE.
Afuse currently implements the most basic functionality that can be expected
by an automounter; that is it manages a directory of virtual directories. If
one of these virtual directories is accessed and is not already automounted,
afuse will attempt to mount a filesystem onto that directory. If the mount
succeeds the requested access proceeds as normal, otherwise it will fail
with an error.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC 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

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly 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 #22 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 11:57:19 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 461077] Review Request: nxtvepg - A nexTView EPG decoder and browser

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461077


Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]
   ||oject.org)




--- Comment #22 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 11:59:10 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 466301] Review Request: ario - Music Player Daemon Client

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466301


Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]
   ||om)




--- Comment #14 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 12:02:56 EDT 
---
Please rebuild this package on koji and for F-10/8/9
please submit push requests on bodhi:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 461899] Review Request: thebridge - ILink/EchoLink compatible conference bridge

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461899





--- Comment #3 from Lucian Langa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 12:40:11 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> This package includes its own, old, copy of zlib, and it seems to build and
> link against it statically.  It really needs to build against the system zlib
> instead.
Fixed.


> I'm not sure there's much point in stating that this softwarew runs inder QNX
> or OS X, as this package certainly won't.
Updated.

> I note that 1.06 seems to be the current version.  Any reason not to update to
> it?  (I don't know if it has the zlib problem or not.)
Updated. (same zlib issue).

new version:
http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/thebridge.spec
http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/thebridge-1.06-2.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 461003] Review Request: ssbd - Voice keyer for use in hamradio

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461003





--- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 12:41:39 EDT 
---
I know the package contains the license text.  But did you actually read it? 
It contains version 2 of the GPL, and clause 9 says:

"
If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may
choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
"

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing says:

"
A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that
it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is
technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the
version in whatever COPYING file they include.
"

So, I ask again, where do you see that a version of the GPL is specified?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 461003] Review Request: ssbd - Voice keyer for use in hamradio

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461003





--- Comment #4 from Lucian Langa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 12:56:14 EDT 
---
updated:
http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/ssbd.spec
http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/ssbd-0.10-3.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 469590] Review Request: cpuid - Dumps information about the CPU(s)

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469590





--- Comment #14 from Dan Horák <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 12:57:31 EDT ---
ping

Didn't you forget to push the update to "stable"? New packages can go directly
into stable and there is special type for such update (newpackage).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 472542] Review Request: afuse - An automounter implemented with FUSE

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472542


Peter Lemenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Flag||fedora-review?




--- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 13:05:52 EDT 
---
Helpful companion to fuse. I'll review 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 468604] Review Request: echolinux - Linux echolink client

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468604





--- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 13:08:08 EDT 
---
I know that other files have that header, but the file in question does not. 
Without the accompanying COPYRIGHT file its not possible to determine what the
license on that particular header is, and we have no redistribution rights at
all.

Now, given context we can tell that it comes from the gsm package, which is
already in Fedora and carries an MIT license.  However, I chatted with the
legal expert and the bottom line is that unless we can go back in time and find
something with that exact version of the header that has the COPYRIGHT file
intact, we have no way to prove that the license didn't change at some point
and hence the gsm.h and libgsm.a files need to be treated as prohibited source
and actually removed from the tarball that gets packed into the srpm.  See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code
for more details.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC 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] Review Request: echolinux - Linux echolink client

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468604





--- Comment #4 from Lucian Langa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 13:28:34 EDT 
---
well,

gsm.h from this package contains the RCS tag

/*$Header: /home/kbs/jutta/src/gsm/gsm-1.0/inc/RCS/gsm.h,v 1.4 1993/01/29
20:07:38 jutta Exp $*/

here's a snippet from ChangeLog from that period:

Tue Jan 25 22:53:40 1994  Jutta Degener (jutta at kugelbus)

* Release 1.0 Patchlevel 3
changed rpe.c's STEP macro to work with 16-bit integers,
thanks to Dr Alex Lee ([EMAIL PROTECTED]);
removed non-fatal bugs from add-test.dta, private.h
and toast_audio.c, thanks to P. Emanuelsson.

Fri Jan 29 19:02:12 1993  Jutta Degener  (jutta at kraftbus)

* Release 1.0 Patchlevel 2
fixed L_add(0,-1) in src/add.c and inc/private.h,
thanks to Raphael Trommer at AT&T Bell Laboratories;
various other ANSI C compatibility details

Fri Oct 30 17:58:54 1992  Jutta Degener  (jutta at kraftbus)

* Release 1.0 Patchlevel 1
Switched uid/gid in toast's [f]chown calls.

Wed Oct 28 14:12:35 1992  Carsten Bormann  (cabo at kubus)

* Release 1.0: released
Copyright 1992 by Jutta Degener and Carsten Bormann, Technische
Universitaet Berlin.  See the accompanying file "COPYRIGHT" for
details.  THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY FOR THIS SOFTWARE.


Here's the content of COPYING:

Copyright 1992, 1993, 1994 by Jutta Degener and Carsten Bormann,
Technische Universitaet Berlin

Any use of this software is permitted provided that this notice is not
removed and that neither the authors nor the Technische Universitaet Berlin
are deemed to have made any representations as to the suitability of this
software for any purpose nor are held responsible for any defects of
this software.  THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY FOR THIS SOFTWARE.

As a matter of courtesy, the authors request to be informed about uses
this software has found, about bugs in this software, and about any
improvements that may be of general interest.

Berlin, 28.11.1994
Jutta Degener
Carsten Bormann

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 446989] Review Request: python-epsilon - A small utility package that depends on tools too recent for Twisted

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446989


Mauricio Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] |
   |net)|




--- Comment #4 from Mauricio Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 13:48:29 
EDT ---
Jason, sorry for taking so long, but I was very busy.

So, I have updated the package with your suggestions. Regarding the file lists,
I just followed the packaging guidelines:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#Byte_Compiled_Files

Would you please review it again?

Spec URL: http://mteixeira.webset.net/mock/python-epsilon.spec
SRPM URL: http://mteixeira.webset.net/mock/python-axiom-0.5.30-1.fc9.src.rpm

Also, would you please review #446990 and #446991? They're all related.

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 459800] Review Request: python-py - Innovative python library containing py.test, greenlets and other niceties

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459800





--- Comment #6 from Thomas Moschny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 13:53:36 EDT 
---
The py.magic.greenlet code does not work on ppc/ppc64, and the corresponding
test segfaults. So far, upstream has not been able to reproduce that, and thus
there's no fix yet, that's why we are currently stalled here.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471915





--- Comment #12 from Permaine Cheung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 14:06:11 
EDT ---
Naming - OK
Legal - OK 
Licensing - OK  - LGPLv3
No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries - OK, removed in %prep
verify any sources and patches :
* Should the TOMCAT_CFG file be set to /etc/jbossweb/jbossweb2.conf instead of
/etc/jbossweb/jbossweb.conf in jbossweb2-2.1-tool-wrapper.script?
verify that the license stated in the spec file matches the actual license of
the software - OK
skim the summary and description for typos and oddities - OK
make sure that the correct build root is used - OK
ensure that macro usage is consistent - OK
* rpmlint output:

[EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint jbossweb2-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.src.rpm
jbossweb2.src:86: E: hardcoded-library-path in /lib/lsb/init-functions
jbossweb2.src:87: E: hardcoded-library-path in /lib/lsb/init-functions
jbossweb2.src:145: W: unversioned-explicit-provides jsp21
jbossweb2.src:173: W: unversioned-explicit-provides servlet6
jbossweb2.src:174: W: unversioned-explicit-provides servlet25
jbossweb2.src: W: non-standard-group Networking/Daemons

[EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint jbossweb2-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.noarch.rpm
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-gid /var/cache/jbossweb2/temp jbossweb
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/jbossweb2/temp 0775
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-gid /var/lib/jbossweb2/webapps jbossweb
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/jbossweb2/webapps 0775
jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/webapps
/var/lib/jbossweb2/webapps
jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/conf
/etc/jbossweb2
jbossweb2.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/jbossweb2/lib
/usr/share/java/jbossweb2
jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/lib
/usr/share/java/jbossweb2
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-gid /var/cache/jbossweb2/work jbossweb
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/jbossweb2/work 0775
jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/work
/var/cache/jbossweb2/work
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-gid /etc/jbossweb2/tomcat-users.xml jbossweb
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/jbossweb2/tomcat-users.xml 0660
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-gid /var/log/jbossweb2 jbossweb
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/jbossweb2 0775
jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/temp
/var/cache/jbossweb2/temp
jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/logs
/var/log/jbossweb2
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-gid /etc/jbossweb2/Catalina/localhost
jbossweb
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/jbossweb2/Catalina/localhost
0775
jbossweb2.noarch: W: non-standard-group Networking/Daemons
jbossweb2.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
jbossweb2.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/jbossweb2 ${NAME}
jbossweb2.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/jbossweb2 ${NAME}
jbossweb2.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/jbossweb2 ${NAME}
jbossweb2.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/jbossweb2 ${NAME}

[EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint
jbossweb2-admin-webapps-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.noarch.rpm
jbossweb2-admin-webapps.noarch: W: no-documentation
jbossweb2-admin-webapps.noarch: W: non-standard-group System
Environment/Applications

[EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint 
jbossweb2-docs-webapp-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.noarch.rpm
jbossweb2-docs-webapp.noarch: W: no-documentation
jbossweb2-docs-webapp.noarch: W: non-standard-group System
Environment/Applications

[EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint jbossweb2-javadoc-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.noarch.rpm

[EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint 
jbossweb2-jsp-2.1-api-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.noarch.rpm
jbossweb2-jsp-2.1-api.noarch: W: no-documentation
jbossweb2-jsp-2.1-api.noarch: W: non-standard-group Internet/WWW/Dynamic
Content

[EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint jbossweb2-lib-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.noarch.rpm 
jbossweb2-lib.noarch: W: no-documentation
jbossweb2-lib.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/java/jbossweb2/jbossweb2-servlet-2.5-api-2.1.1.jar
../jbossweb2-servlet-2.5-api-2.1.1.jar
jbossweb2-lib.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/java/jbossweb2/jbossweb2-jsp-2.1-api-2.1.1.jar
../jbossweb2-jsp-2.1-api-2.1.1.jar
jbossweb2-lib.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Compilers
jbossweb2-lib.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm

[EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint
jbossweb2-servlet-2.5-api-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.noarch.rpm
jbossweb2-servlet-2.5-api.noarch: W: no-documentation
jbossweb2-servlet-2.5-api.noarch: W: non-standard-group Internet/WWW/Dynamic
Content

[EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint jbossweb2-webapps-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.noarch.rpm
jbossweb2-webapps.noarch: W: no-documentation
jbossweb2-webapps.noarch: W: non-standard-group System Environment/Appli

[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471915





--- Comment #13 from David Walluck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 14:33:48 EDT 
---
I fixed TOMCAT_CFG (which was wrong in both scripts) and TOMCAT_USER.

The initscript is an LSB initscript (for cross-distro compatibility). I don't
know that LSB is against Fedora policy in any way. LSB does not require
chkconfig or service, but I added the description line just in case.

I added comments to the Patch lines in the spec. There are no corresponding
upstream bugs.

I used java-1.6.0 and java-1.6.0-devel which has the same effect but avoids the
epoch mess mentioned.

The JDK is also set to /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0, but I wonder if this won't work
if java-devel is not installed, and it's not required. Does setting it to
/usr/lib/jvm/jre-1.6.0 in /etc/sysconfig/jbossweb2 work as expected?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC 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] Review Request: echolinux - Linux echolink client

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468604


Jason Tibbitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||182235




--- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 14:47:12 EDT 
---
Blocking FE-Legal, then.  Dropping the files was discussed as the best way to
handle this, but if you really want to have it passed before the lawyers then I
guess we can wait for that.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 468806] Review Request: python-dbsprockets - A package for creation of web widgets directly from database definitions

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468806


Luke Macken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?




--- Comment #4 from Luke Macken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 15:00:06 EDT ---
New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: python-dbsprockets
Short Description: A package for creation of web widgets directly from database
definitions
Owners: lmacken
Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-5

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 469625] Review Request: perl-MooseX-Types-Path-Class - A Path::Class type library for Moose

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469625


David Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Version|devel   |rawhide
 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED],
   ||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   ||t.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Component|Test|Package Review
  QAContact||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Product|Bugzilla|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 469625] Review Request: perl-MooseX-Types-Path-Class - A Path::Class type library for Moose

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469625


Chris Weyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution||NOTABUG




-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471915





--- Comment #14 from David Walluck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 15:35:04 EDT 
---
Spec URL: 
SRPM URL: 

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 469590] Review Request: cpuid - Dumps information about the CPU(s)

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469590





--- Comment #15 from Fabian Affolter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 16:13:51 
EDT ---
Yes, I did. Thanks for the hint.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 459010] Review request: pystatgrab - Python bindings for libstatgrab

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459010





--- Comment #19 from Soumya Kanti Chakraborty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 
16:29:40 EDT ---
I don't have any branch as F-8 in cvs ? what do do ?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 457926] Review Request: python-wikimarkup - Python module to format text to Mediawiki syntax

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457926





--- Comment #27 from Soumya Kanti Chakraborty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 
16:29:33 EDT ---
I don't have any branch as F-8 in cvs ? what do do ?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 457926] Review Request: python-wikimarkup - Python module to format text to Mediawiki syntax

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457926





--- Comment #28 from Jason Tibbitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 16:59:30 
EDT ---
You did not request an F-8 branch.  Obviously if you don't want your package to
go into F-8 then you should just push it to F-9 and F-10.  If you do want an
F-8 branch, make another CVS request and set the fedora-cvs flag back to '?'.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 468797] Review Request: jrosetta - JRosetta provides a common base for graphical component

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468797


Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]
   ||)




--- Comment #2 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
2008-11-21 17:40:55 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 454410] Review Request: mingw32-gcc - MinGW Windows cross-compiler (GCC) for C and C++

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454410


Levente Farkas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-review+




--- Comment #8 from Levente Farkas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 17:50:21 EDT 
---
with the attached patch the package is good.

 This package (mingw32-gcc) is APPROVED by lfarkas

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 454410] Review Request: mingw32-gcc - MinGW Windows cross-compiler (GCC) for C and C++

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454410


Levente Farkas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]




--- Comment #7 from Levente Farkas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 17:48:42 EDT 
---
Created an attachment (id=324355)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=324355)
spec file patch

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 454414] Review Request: mingw32-w32api - MinGW Windows cross-compiler Win32 header files

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454414


Levente Farkas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]




--- Comment #2 from Levente Farkas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 17:56:46 EDT 
---
Created an attachment (id=324357)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=324357)
spec file patch

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 225897] Merge Review: ImageMagick

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225897


Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||RAWHIDE




--- Comment #16 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 
17:52:51 EDT ---
I guess (since you recently built another release in koji without addressing
this issue) that you decided to leave the document directories the way they
are. A reasoning would have been nice.
Anyways, I'm closing the bug.

-- 
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 459800] Review Request: python-py - Innovative python library containing py.test, greenlets and other niceties

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459800





--- Comment #7 from Thomas Moschny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 17:53:07 EDT 
---
Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/python-py.spec
SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/python-py-0.9.2-4.fc9.src.rpm

%changelog
* Fri Nov 21 2008 Thomas Moschny <..> - 0.9.2-4
- Use dummy_greenlet on ppc and ppc64.

* Tue Oct  7 2008 Thomas Moschny <..> - 0.9.2-3
- Replace compat modules by stubs using the system modules instead.
- Add patch from trunk fixing a timing issue in the tests.

* Tue Sep 30 2008 Thomas Moschny <..> - 0.9.2-2
- Update license information.
- Fix the tests.

Still four failing tests, though, see
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=944709
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=944685

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 233946] Review Request: secondlife - The Second Life client

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=233946


Callum Lerwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])   |




--- Comment #34 from Callum Lerwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 18:02:37 
EDT ---
Yes, xmlrpc-epi is required. I'm finally settled and getting back to hacking
code so I may be reviving my Second Life efforts soon. I'm hacking on OpenJPEG
at the moment...

-- 
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 454414] Review Request: mingw32-w32api - MinGW Windows cross-compiler Win32 header files

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454414


Levente Farkas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-review+




--- Comment #3 from Levente Farkas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 18:04:41 EDT 
---
with the attached patch the package is good.

 This package (mingw32-w32api) is APPROVED by lfarkas

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 454412] Review Request: mingw32-runtime - MinGW Windows cross-compiler runtime and root filesystem

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454412


Levente Farkas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-review+




--- Comment #12 from Levente Farkas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 18:13:13 
EDT ---
with the attached patch the package is good.

 This package (mingw32-runtime) is APPROVED by lfarkas

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 454412] Review Request: mingw32-runtime - MinGW Windows cross-compiler runtime and root filesystem

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454412


Levente Farkas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]




--- Comment #11 from Levente Farkas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 18:11:45 
EDT ---
Created an attachment (id=324358)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=324358)
spec file patch

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 472098] Review Request: dekiwiki - a powerful opensource wiki which runs on Mono

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472098





--- Comment #4 from Mathieu OUDART <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 18:15:31 EDT 
---
Thanks for the input Andreas.

About the dependencies: i've had a quick test on fresh installs for Fedora9,
CentOS5 and RHEL5 for the optional dependencies "wv xlhtml poppler-utils
html2text" and unfortunately none of them resolves on all 3 systems :(
That would really bother me if any Deki install failed because of these
unresolved packages so I'd prefer to let them apart for now.

about the spec: i applied your suggestions.

I kept the %if conditions but tried to make it more readable. It's much more
convenient to build from a single source on all platforms.

wiki db update : I kept it for now considering that package updates can be done
in the background/automatically. Upgrading the software files but not the db
could result in a broken website until the sysadmin takes his actions. For the
upgrade to be as safe and smooth as possible, I think it's better to update the
wiki db schema at the same time we update the software files.

about the %post : I let you have a look at it, I followed your recommendations.

I now still have to figure out how to have users to complete the installation
since I removed mozroots, mysqld start and all the output. Any best practices
about that ?

new links :

Spec URL:
http://nightlybuild.mindtouch.com/Submitted_Packages/Fedora/src/dekiwiki.spec
SRPM URL:
http://nightlybuild.mindtouch.com/Submitted_Packages/Fedora/src/dekiwiki-8.08.11722-1.1.src.rpm

Cheers

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 452584] Review Request: mldonkey - Client for several P2P networks

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452584


Martí­n Marqués <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]




--- Comment #6 from Martí­n Marqués <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 19:01:18 
EDT ---
Shouldn't that be 2.9.6-2 to distinguish the changes from 2.6.9-1?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 472149] Review Request: refmac-dictionary - chemical ligand dictionaries

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472149





--- Comment #4 from Tim Fenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 19:05:41 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Can you indicate where you see a statement that this package is under LGPLv3? 
> All I see is the COPYING file, which has the usual language indicating that 
> any
> LGPL version applies unless there is some indication of a specific choice of
> version.  This would indicate LGPLv2+ (since there was no LGPLv1).
> 

Sorry, I assumed LGPLv3 since it says "version 3" at the top of the copying
file, and appears to be an exact copy of:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.txt

> 
> Is there any reason to have the "data" directory, instead of just putting the
> monomers directly into %{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version}?  It just seems a bit 
> odd
> to have two successive directories with nothing in them except for another
> directory.

Right - the only reason for that is most programs that access the data assume
the files are under datadir/data/monomers/ - I can simply make a symbolic link
instead, though, if that would be more appropriate.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 469968] Review Request: Vala - a programming language

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469968


Gérard Milmeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]




--- Comment #1 from Gérard Milmeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 19:11:44 
EDT ---
Is there a reason for the new submission?
The package already exists:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/vala

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 472149] Review Request: refmac-dictionary - chemical ligand dictionaries

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472149





--- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 19:31:01 EDT 
---
Sure, it says version 3, but it pays to actually read the license.  See section
6:

"
If the Library as you received it does not specify a version number of the GNU
Lesser General Public License, you may choose any version of the GNU Lesser
General Public License ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
"

Our licensing page also covers this:

"
A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that
it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is
technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the
version in whatever COPYING file they include.
"

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing

There's no need for a symlink; if other programs expect to see it there then
there's no problem.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 472149] Review Request: refmac-dictionary - chemical ligand dictionaries

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472149





--- Comment #6 from Tim Fenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 19:56:36 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> 
> Our licensing page also covers this:
> 
> "
> A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that
> it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is
> technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the
> version in whatever COPYING file they include.
> "
> 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
> 

Sorry, I didn't realize this.  Changed to LGPLv2+ for now (and I'll talk with
upstream about including a specific statement as to which version they
intended).

Spec URL: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/refmac-dictionary.spec
SRPM URL:
http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/refmac-dictionary-5.02-3.f8.src.rpm

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 472269] Review Request: python-rope - Python Code Refactoring Library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472269


Brian Pepple <[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 452584] Review Request: mldonkey - Client for several P2P networks

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452584





--- Comment #7 from Naveed Hasan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 20:06:47 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Shouldn't that be 2.9.6-2 to distinguish the changes from 2.6.9-1?

http://mldonkey.sourceforge.net/News

Release 2.9.5 had SRPM mldonkey-2.9.5-1.fc9.src.rpm
Release 2.9.6 has SRPM mldonkey-2.9.6-1.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 471527] Review Request: snmp++ - SNMP C++ library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471527


Hayden James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?




-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 471527] Review Request: snmp++ - SNMP C++ library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471527





--- Comment #18 from Hayden James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 20:08:43 EDT 
---
New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: snmp_pp
Short Description: SNMP++ is a C++ development library for SNMP
Owners: hjames
Branches: F-9 F-10
InitialCC: mtasaka

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 472269] Review Request: python-rope - Python Code Refactoring Library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472269


Brian Pepple <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+




--- Comment #1 from Brian Pepple <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 20:49:05 EDT 
---
MD5Sum:
2b812782b43d365058fa1b2e64e36f7f  rope-0.9.1.tar.gz

Good:
* Source URL is canonical
* Upstream source tarball verified
* Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines
* Group Tag is from the official list
* Valid license tag
* Buildroot has all required elements
* All paths begin with macros
* All necessary BuildRequires listed.
* Package builds in Mock.
* rpmlint produces no errors.
* Package installs and uninstalls cleanly.

+1 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 439630] Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630





--- Comment #22 from D Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 23:22:06 EDT ---
Created an attachment (id=324396)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=324396)
Fix dirs for install target

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 439630] Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630





--- Comment #23 from D Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 23:23:19 EDT ---
If I remove your patch0, then all is well with the build, however as you point
out that is only because I have gluegen in my build dir.

Could one possibly, as part of the gluegen package, simply install the glugegen
source into /usr/share/gluegen/, and then with patch0, instead of commenting
out the gluegen location, remap it to /usr/share/glugen?


Also, as per the previous patch, some of the %install target locations were not
quite right

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 452584] Review Request: mldonkey - Client for several P2P networks

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452584





--- Comment #8 from Alexey Kuznetsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-21 23:26:45 
EDT ---
2(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > Shouldn't that be 2.9.6-2 to distinguish the changes from 2.6.9-1?
> 
> http://mldonkey.sourceforge.net/News
> 
> Release 2.9.5 had SRPM mldonkey-2.9.5-1.fc9.src.rpm
> Release 2.9.6 has SRPM mldonkey-2.9.6-1.fc9.src.rpm

then why kernel do not clean suffix?

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 452584] Review Request: mldonkey - Client for several P2P networks

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452584





--- Comment #9 from Naveed Hasan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-22 00:51:12 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #8)
> then why kernel do not clean suffix?
> 
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8

They do. Look on the second page of results and you'll see
kernel-2.6.27-1.fc10, for example. The changes and builds for that package are
much more frequent, sometimes multiple times a day.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 452584] Review Request: mldonkey - Client for several P2P networks

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452584





--- Comment #10 from Alexey Kuznetsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-22 01:00:43 
EDT ---
That is't true for kernel, i check about 5 pages and can't find any drops for
suffix.

As you can see before kernel-2.6.27-1.fc10 (-1) here (-0) suffix, look:
kernel-2.6.27-0.408.rc9.git1.fc10

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 452584] Review Request: mldonkey - Client for several P2P networks

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452584





--- Comment #11 from Naveed Hasan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-22 01:14:26 EDT 
---
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines has all of the details
for package naming, specifically
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Package_Release with
respect to the release number.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 461407] Review Request: laf-plugin - Generic plugin framework for Java look-and-feels

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461407





--- Comment #18 from D Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-11-22 02:54:05 EDT ---
I appear to be having trouble with the make build targets for anything but the
devel branch. F-8, F-9 and F-10 simply hang when executing make build. The
devel branch works fine:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=944896&name=srpm.log

Any advice would be appreciated.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review