[Bug 226544] Merge Review: wpa_supplicant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544 --- Comment #20 from Ronny Fischer 2008-12-12 02:22:45 EDT --- Ok, I see those patches are necessary but at least the wpa_supplicant-0.5.7-qmake-location.patch could be (or become) obsolete since wpa_supplicant is able to use either qt3 or qt4 for the gui and the qt4 installation has a default installation path in Fedora. I guess for long time reasons qt4 should be used. -- 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 474193] Review Request: glog - A C++ application logging 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=474193 --- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka 2008-12-12 02:07:36 EDT --- Thank you, Toshio. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476160] Review Request: perl-Directory-Scratch - Self-cleaning scratch space for tests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476160 --- Comment #3 from Chris Weyl 2008-12-12 01:33:10 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Directory-Scratch Short Description: Self-cleaning scratch space for tests Owners: cweyl Branches: F-9 F-10 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 476160] Review Request: perl-Directory-Scratch - Self-cleaning scratch space for tests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476160 Chris Weyl 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 476160] Review Request: perl-Directory-Scratch - Self-cleaning scratch space for tests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476160 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) 2008-12-12 01:23:09 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i386). koji Build => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=994338 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url 3e759c3a5ff8c678725aad99e80a5c14 Directory-Scratch-0.14.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test gave All tests successful. Files=37, Tests=268, 6 wallclock secs ( 0.20 usr 0.07 sys + 4.96 cusr 0.49 csys = 5.72 CPU) + Package perl-Directory-Scratch-0.14-2.fc11 => Provides: perl(Directory::Scratch) = 0.14 Requires: perl(Carp) perl(File::Copy) perl(File::Slurp) perl(File::Spec) perl(File::Temp) perl(File::stat) perl(Path::Class) perl(Scalar::Util) perl(overload) perl(strict) perl(warnings) 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 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 #13 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-12 00:54:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > > However, your xml is broken. Please always check your xml files with xmllint > > --format before submission. > > Would it make sense to run xmllint in all fonts packages %build or %install to > check for errors? IMHO this would needlessly complexify font specs just at the time we've finally made them simple. Since fontconfig config files are not supposed to change that often, this check belongs more in rpmlint or the package auto reviewer IMHO (check being: check that all files installed in the fontconfig dir as defined by fontpackages-filesystem validate against the current fontconfig DTD) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476160] Review Request: perl-Directory-Scratch - Self-cleaning scratch space for tests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476160 Chris Weyl changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||473718 --- Comment #1 from Chris Weyl 2008-12-12 00:46:27 EDT --- Koji (dist-f11): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=994338 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473718] Review Request: perl-Directory-Scratch-Structured - Creates temporary files and directories from a structured description
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473718 Chris Weyl changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||476160 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476160] New: Review Request: perl-Directory-Scratch - Self-cleaning scratch space for tests
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-Directory-Scratch - Self-cleaning scratch space for tests https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476160 Summary: Review Request: perl-Directory-Scratch - Self-cleaning scratch space for tests Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Directory-Scratch OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: cw...@alumni.drew.edu QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-Directory-Scratch.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-Directory-Scratch-0.14-2.fc9.src.rpm Description: When writing test suites for modules that operate on files, it's often inconvenient to correctly create a platform-independent temporary storage space, manipulate files inside it, then clean it up when the test exits. The inconvenience usually results in tests that don’t work everwhere, or worse, no tests at all. This module aims to eliminate that problem by making it easy to do things 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 473718] Review Request: perl-Directory-Scratch-Structured - Creates temporary files and directories from a structured description
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473718 --- Comment #2 from Chris Weyl 2008-12-11 23:41:47 EDT --- Working on it -- apparently going from F-9 to F-10 broke my posting script in so-far mysterious ways. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476025] Review Request: mythes-ga - Irish thesaurus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476025 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) 2008-12-11 22:56:43 EDT --- Review: + package builds in rawhide. Koji build => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=994259 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream. 6b9ea0456dcc78ebbe99d18ba32854f7 thes_ga_IE_v2.zip + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc files present. + BuildRequires are proper. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code. + no static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + no scriptlets are used. + Not a GUI app. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 469471] Review Request: skinlf - Java look and feel for swing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469471 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 426750] Review Request: ghc-utf8-string - Support reading and writing UTF8 Strings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426750 --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen 2008-12-11 20:45:33 EDT --- I think this one is less urgent, but I can provide an updated package later. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=426754&hide_resolved=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 426751] Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics 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=426751 --- Comment #28 from Jens Petersen 2008-12-11 20:38:08 EDT --- (Needsponsor was for Yaakov, but he seems to be too busy for fedora at the moment...) > Michel is already assigned to this, are you planning to review this, soon? Yeah Michel has not commented since Sept. Michel, if you are not available then I think we should let Till take over the review. :) > Are there any plans to get this also into F10? Sure, why not. :) Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-X11/ghc-X11.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-X11/ghc-X11-1.4.5-1.fc10.src.rpm This needs rawhide ghc to build. (I am kind of hovering on whether the build_doc and build_prof build switches are overkill or not for general libs: sometimes they are useful - they do make the spec file a little more complicated but make clear which parts are for docs and profiling. The current templates I made have them though.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472144] Review Request: tvbrowser - Free EPG for over 500 stations.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472144 Sandro Mathys changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||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 472144] Review Request: tvbrowser - Free EPG for over 500 stations.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472144 --- Comment #3 from Sandro Mathys 2008-12-11 20:12:51 EDT --- Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser.spec SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser-2.7.1-0.4.fc10.src.rpm Everything mentioned in the comments above fixed. Those precompiled jars from upstream's src distribution are now BuildRequires, and those not already available in Fedora are now ready for review (see the dependency tree of this request). During javadoc generation there's a NullPointerException for no obvious reason. I was not yet able to track this down and will need some more time for this. But I wouldn't consider the javadoc a show-stopper since this is an application and no library or the like. rpmlint on spec, srpm and noarch-rpms finishes checking without any warnings or errors. Successfully created a mock-(re)build of this version of this pkg. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475471] Review Request: poi - Java API to Access Microsoft Format 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=475471 --- Comment #1 from Sandro Mathys 2008-12-11 20:04:47 EDT --- mock-(re)build failed due to some junit problem. I'll need some time to look into 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 474983] Review Request: TVAnytimeAPI - A java API for parsing, manipulating and creating TV-Anytime metadata
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474983 --- Comment #1 from Sandro Mathys 2008-12-11 20:02:28 EDT --- Successfully created a mock-(re)build of this version of this pkg. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474981] Review Request: jcalendar - A Java date chooser bean for graphically picking a date
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474981 --- Comment #1 from Sandro Mathys 2008-12-11 20:02:50 EDT --- Successfully created a mock-(re)build of this version of this pkg. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475018] Review Request: xtvd - A client java library for easy access to the tv data from schedulesdirect.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=475018 --- Comment #2 from Sandro Mathys 2008-12-11 20:01:39 EDT --- Successfully created a mock-(re)build of this version of this pkg. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474982] Review Request: nachocalendar - Provides a flexible Calendar component to the Java Platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474982 --- Comment #1 from Sandro Mathys 2008-12-11 20:02:39 EDT --- Successfully created a mock-(re)build of this version of this pkg. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 #12 from Jens Petersen 2008-12-11 20:05:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) > However, your xml is broken. Please always check your xml files with xmllint > --format before submission. Would it make sense to run xmllint in all fonts packages %build or %install to check for errors? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475019] Review Request: opencsv - A very simple csv (comma-separated values) parser library for Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475019 --- Comment #1 from Sandro Mathys 2008-12-11 20:01:29 EDT --- Successfully created a mock-(re)build of this version of this pkg. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474985] Review Request: jakarta-commons-compress - API for working with tar, zip and bzip2 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=474985 --- Comment #1 from Sandro Mathys 2008-12-11 20:02:14 EDT --- Successfully created a mock-(re)build of this version of this pkg. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474999] Review Request: gdata-java - Client libraries to write Google Data API client applications in Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474999 --- Comment #1 from Sandro Mathys 2008-12-11 20:02:01 EDT --- Successfully created a mock-(re)build of this version of this pkg. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475017] Review Request: l2fprod-common - In JavaSE missing Swing components, inspired from modern user interfaces
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475017 --- Comment #1 from Sandro Mathys 2008-12-11 20:01:50 EDT --- Successfully created a mock-(re)build of this version of this pkg. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475508] Review Request: javassist - The Java Programming Assistant provides simple Java bytecode manipulation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475508 --- Comment #1 from Sandro Mathys 2008-12-11 20:01:18 EDT --- Successfully created a mock-(re)build of this version of this pkg. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=184530 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lkund...@v3.sk Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #46 from Lubomir Rintel 2008-12-11 19:41:21 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-RPM2 New Branches: F-10 Note: This was declared dead due to incompatibility with RPM 4.6 before F-10 branching took place. It had been resurrected in CVS devel and patched for RPM 4.6 now. -- 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 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 Jeroen van Meeuwen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(tcall...@redhat.c ||om) Bug 470696 depends on bug 470694, which changed state. Bug 470694 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-rack - Common API for connecting web frameworks, web servers and layers of software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470694 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #16 from Jeroen van Meeuwen 2008-12-11 19:13:08 EDT --- I've contacted both upstream for CNRI as well as Phusion Passenger; = CNRI = I've requested taking into consideration re-licensing the original mod_scgi code-base to a GPLv2-compatible license, and they promised me to have their CEO look into it. Should they choose to do so, I think that would kill both birds with one stone, wouldn't it? = Phusion Passenger = They are considering re-licensing Phusion Passenger (thus rubygem-passenger) to the MIT license. Would that solve the incompatibility issue? And, would that make the package's license acceptable for inclusion in Fedora/EPEL? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468285] Review Request: gobject-introspection
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468285 Colin Walters changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 469471] Review Request: skinlf - Java look and feel for swing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469471 D Haley changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #17 from D Haley 2008-12-11 17:02:55 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: skinlf Short Description: Java look and feel for swing Owners: mycae Branches: F-9 F-10 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 469460] review request: gir-repository - GObject Introspection Repository
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469460 --- Comment #3 from Colin Walters 2008-12-11 16:55:15 EDT --- Ping on this 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 226544] Merge Review: wpa_supplicant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(lemen...@gmail.co | |m) | --- Comment #19 from Peter Lemenkov 2008-12-11 16:42:04 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17) [sorry, skipped] These comments should be added to spec-file. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment > I've aggressively upstreamed patches from wpa_supplicant for a long time. > Some > patches never will go upstream, but there's only one patch here > (IW_ENCODE_TEMP) that's a candidate for upstreaming. (In reply to comment #18) > Also note that many of the patches marked "backport" above were only made > available in the quite recent 0.6.6 release on November 23rd. Ok, understood. -- 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 226544] Merge Review: wpa_supplicant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544 --- Comment #18 from Dan Williams 2008-12-11 16:36:25 EDT --- Also note that many of the patches marked "backport" above were only made available in the quite recent 0.6.6 release on November 23rd. -- 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 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 #12 from Victor Bogado 2008-12-11 16:36:49 EDT --- There is a new upstream version, I made a new srpm and spec file to reflect that. http://bogado.net/rpm/puzzles-8365-1.bog10.src.rpm http://bogado.net/rpm/puzzles.spec Otherwise those have the updates asked in comment #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 226544] Merge Review: wpa_supplicant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544 --- Comment #17 from Dan Williams 2008-12-11 16:33:59 EDT --- wpa_supplicant-0.5.10-dbus-service-file.patch :: disto specific customization for log paths, not suitable for upstream wpa_supplicant-0.5.7-flush-debug-output.patch :: ensures that debug output gets flushed immediately to help diagnose driver bugs, not suitable for upstream wpa_supplicant-0.5.7-qmake-location.patch :: build fix for Fedora, not suitable for upstream wpa_supplicant-0.5.7-use-IW_ENCODE_TEMP.patch :: have already discussed this with upstream and Jouni wants more information about it wpa_supplicant-0.6.4-handle-invalid-ies.patch :: backport wpa_supplicant-0.6.4-scan-fixes-1.patch :: backport wpa_supplicant-0.6.4-scan-fixes-2.patch :: backport wpa_supplicant-0.6.4-set-mode-handler.patch :: backport wpa_supplicant-0.6.4-validate-wext-event.patch :: backport wpa_supplicant-assoc-timeout.patch :: distro specific customization and not suitable for upstream, works around busted drivers I've aggressively upstreamed patches from wpa_supplicant for a long time. Some patches never will go upstream, but there's only one patch here (IW_ENCODE_TEMP) that's a candidate for upstreaming. -- 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 226544] Merge Review: wpa_supplicant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544 Dan Williams changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(lemen...@gmail.co ||m) --- Comment #16 from Dan Williams 2008-12-11 16:29:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) > The right question is why they still not in the upstream :) Which specific patches do you mean? -- 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 473452] Review Request: system-config-services-docs - Documentation for configuring system services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473452 --- Comment #9 from Till Maas 2008-12-11 16:22:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > I think you misunderstand the purpose of the Obsoletes: line, then. The > intended behavior is to have this package pulled in automatically upon a > system-config-services upgrade, but then allow it to be removed later. What > you are seeing is the expected set of dependencies needed to make that happen > (at least according to the experts I discussed this with on IRC). Thanks, this is good to know. I just tested it, and it works. :-D -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226544] Merge Review: wpa_supplicant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544 --- Comment #15 from Peter Lemenkov 2008-12-11 16:24:48 EDT --- The right question is why they still not in the upstream :) -- 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 468003] Review Request: qmtest - an automated software test execution tool.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468003 --- Comment #21 from Stefan Seefeld 2008-12-11 16:16:05 EDT --- OK, here you go: README file is changed, to explicitly state 'version 2', and qmtest.spec file is changed (back) to 'GPLv2', so both now agree with the website (qmtest.com). http://synopsis.fresco.org/download/srpm/qmtest-2.4-5.fc9.src.rpm http://synopsis.fresco.org/download/srpm/qmtest.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226544] Merge Review: wpa_supplicant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544 --- Comment #14 from Ronny Fischer 2008-12-11 16:01:52 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) > Another one note - should we predefine -Dwext in DRIVERS section of > wpa_supplicant.sysconfig? I think that's a generally good idea. E.g. change > DRIVERS="" to DRIVERS="-Dwext" in the wpa_supplicant.sysconfig . That would be a good idea since most of the drivers use wireless extensions. A question: Are those new patches really necessary? Since I build my own wpa_supplicant based on the elder spec file, I never experienced any of the mentioned problems in regular operations. -- 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 475860] Review Request: libmsn - Library for connecting to the MSN Messenger service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475860 John5342 changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from John5342 2008-12-11 16:00:22 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: libmsn Short Description: Library for connecting to the MSN(tm) Messenger service Owners: john5342 Branches: F-9 F-10 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 473452] Review Request: system-config-services-docs - Documentation for configuring system services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473452 --- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts 2008-12-11 16:00:23 EDT --- I think you misunderstand the purpose of the Obsoletes: line, then. The intended behavior is to have this package pulled in automatically upon a system-config-services upgrade, but then allow it to be removed later. What you are seeing is the expected set of dependencies needed to make that happen (at least according to the experts I discussed this with on IRC). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467175] Review Request: perl-Set-Object - Set of objects and strings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467175 Gerd Hoffmann changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #23 from Gerd Hoffmann 2008-12-11 15:30:15 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Set-Object Short Description: Set of objects and strings Owners: kraxel Branches: F-9 F-10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473452] Review Request: system-config-services-docs - Documentation for configuring system services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473452 --- Comment #7 from Till Maas 2008-12-11 15:29:53 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > Honestly I don't see why there's any issue to begin with. In the case of > these > package, I suppose you could just hardcode the "s/y/" bit as they should all > be > the same. In general we don't really want to deter packagers from making use > of macros in Source: URLs, and it would be pointless to try and make some list > of macros which are acceptable there. The only macros I do not really like in Source0, are the ones that execute programs, e.g. %(rm -rf / &>/dev/null; echo http://www.example.com/foo.tar.gz). But it is not that important to me, since I now know, that this might happen, I will be more careful with using spectool. Btw. one odd thing for me in this spec is: Obsoletes: system-config-services < 0.99.29 Requires: system-config-services >= 0.99.29 Afaik the Obsoletes does not make sense here, because thanks to the Requires, old packages will be obsoleted by the newer system-config-services package automatically. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226544] Merge Review: wpa_supplicant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544 --- Comment #13 from Peter Lemenkov 2008-12-11 15:24:08 EDT --- Another one note - should we predefine -Dwext in DRIVERS section of wpa_supplicant.sysconfig? I think that's a generally good idea. E.g. change DRIVERS="" to DRIVERS="-Dwext" in the wpa_supplicant.sysconfig . -- 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 226544] Merge Review: wpa_supplicant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544 --- Comment #12 from Peter Lemenkov 2008-12-11 15:18:48 EDT --- rpmlint: [pe...@sulaco ppc]$ rpmlint wpa_supplicant-* wpa_supplicant.ppc: E: non-readable /etc/wpa_supplicant/wpa_supplicant.conf 0600 wpa_supplicant.ppc: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/wpa_supplicant-0.6.4/examples/wpas-test.py wpa_supplicant.ppc: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dbus-1/system.d/wpa_supplicant.conf wpa_supplicant.ppc: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/wpa_supplicant-0.6.4/examples/wpas-test.py /usr/bin/python wpa_supplicant.ppc: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/wpa_supplicant $prog wpa_supplicant-gui.ppc: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. [pe...@sulaco ppc]$ I think that issue non-conffile-in-etc should be fixed, while other messages may be ignored. -- 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 225798] Merge Review: gimp-help
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225798
--- Comment #4 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2008-12-11
15:17:18 EDT ---
Thanks for the update. There are two more little things:
* From the SPEC file:
cat << EOF > files.list
%%defattr (-, root, root, -)
%%dir %{_datadir}/gimp/%{gimpsubver}/help
%{_datadir}/gimp/%{gimpsubver}/help/images
EOF
and
echo "%%lang($dir) %{_datadir}/gimp/%{gimpsubver}/help/$dir" >> "$f"
The macro entries with single % expand into the files.list . This is equivalent
to putting hard-coded paths into %files . I think those macro entries need
double-% too.
* Parallel make must be supported whenever possible (If it is not supported,
this should be noted in the SPEC file as a comment.). Sorry that I missed this
in my initial review. Enabling the parallel make didn't cause a problem with my
dual core. It certainly speeds things up.
--
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 226544] Merge Review: wpa_supplicant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544
--- Comment #10 from Peter Lemenkov 2008-12-11 15:11:39
EDT ---
Remarks:
* Latest development version is 0.6.6 - consider upgrading.
* %install section needs some cleanups:
** installation should preserve timestamps (e.g. %install should be invoked
with -p key)
** no need to explicitly create directories - you should use key -D
** I don't see the need to cleanup something in
$BUILD/%{name}-%{version}/%{name}/doc/
E.g. I propose you to shorten install section up to
%install
rm -rf %{buildroot}
# init scripts
install -D -p -m 0755 %{SOURCE3}
%{buildroot}/%{_sysconfdir}/rc.d/init.d/%{name}
install -D -p -m 0644 %{SOURCE4} %{buildroot}/%{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/%{name}
install -D -p -m 0644 %{SOURCE6}
%{buildroot}/%{_sysconfdir}/logrotate.d/%{name}
# config
install -D -p -m 0600 %{SOURCE2}
%{buildroot}/%{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/%{name}.conf
# binary
install -d %{buildroot}/%{_sbindir}
install -m 0755 %{name}/wpa_passphrase %{buildroot}/%{_sbindir}
install -m 0755 %{name}/wpa_cli %{buildroot}/%{_sbindir}
install -m 0755 %{name}/wpa_supplicant %{buildroot}/%{_sbindir}
install -D -p -m 0644 %{name}/dbus-wpa_supplicant.conf
%{buildroot}/%{_sysconfdir}/dbus-1/system.d/wpa_supplicant.conf
install -D -p -m 0644 %{name}/dbus-wpa_supplicant.service
%{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/dbus-1/system-services/fi.epitest.hostap.WPASupplicant.service
# gui
install -D -p -m 0755 %{name}/wpa_gui/wpa_gui %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/wpa_gui
# running
mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_localstatedir}/run/%{name}
# man pages
install -d %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man{5,8}
install -m 0644 %{name}/doc/docbook/*.8 %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man8
install -m 0644 %{name}/doc/docbook/*.5 %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man5
--
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 468003] Review Request: qmtest - an automated software test execution tool.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468003 --- Comment #20 from Jason Tibbitts 2008-12-11 15:15:22 EDT --- Stefan, would you mind reading the rest of the COPYING file? Down where in term 9 it 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. This is where the whole issue comes from. You cannot just say "Look at the COPYING file". Well, you can, but that file is rather explicit in saying that then someone who wishes to distribute the software can choose GPLv1 if they want. The FSF is really clear that every source file needs to contain a specific block of text indicating, among other things, the license version in use. Now, there's a whole procedure to go through in determining the intent of the author if they have chosen for some reason to leave off those blocks of text. Upstream web sites can be used assuming that we can establish that they are authoried by the same entity which authored the software. But that's really a case-by-case thing that the legal folks need to look at. Isn't it just simpler to include an actual statement of the license version? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226544] Merge Review: wpa_supplicant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544 --- Comment #11 from Peter Lemenkov 2008-12-11 15:13:42 EDT --- http://peter.fedorapeople.org/wpa_supplicant.spec -- 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 470702] Review Request: L-function - L-function calculator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470702 --- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter 2008-12-11 14:57:18 EDT --- Scratch build: Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=993881 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475055] Review Request: gfan - Software for Compu ting Gröbner Fans and Tropical Varieties
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475055 --- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter 2008-12-11 14:55:45 EDT --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=993871 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475322] Review Request: genus2reduction - Computes Reductions of Genus 2 Proper Smooth Curves
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475322 --- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter 2008-12-11 14:56:38 EDT --- Scratch build: Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=993876 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475065] Review Request: givaro - C++ library for arithmetic and algebraic computations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475065 --- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter 2008-12-11 14:55:10 EDT --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=993866 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473452] Review Request: system-config-services-docs - Documentation for configuring system services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473452 --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts 2008-12-11 14:51:50 EDT --- I think the issue is actually rpm, not spectool, as 6.7 running on F9 doesn't find any URLs to extract (-l returns nothing) but the same executable running on F10 works OK. Honestly I don't see why there's any issue to begin with. In the case of these package, I suppose you could just hardcode the "s/y/" bit as they should all be the same. In general we don't really want to deter packagers from making use of macros in Source: URLs, and it would be pointless to try and make some list of macros which are acceptable there. Anyway, I'm reviewing all of these together, and hope to have them finished up later today. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475410] Review Request: symmetrica - A Collection of Routines for Solving Symmetric Groups
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475410 --- Comment #2 from Conrad Meyer 2008-12-11 14:41:34 EDT --- Sorry that this package seems like such spaghetti. As far as I know upstream developed this, and then dumped it on the internet. I don't know if it has any intentions of even taking patches. I would certainly appreciate help making a shared library (I don't expect upstream to change at all, so we don't have to worry too much about a soname other than .0). The documentation is all plain text with a .doc extension. I can rename them all to not have the .doc extension (or replace it with .txt or something) if you like. I don't believe upstream has any interest in their code any more, but it is still useful for SAGE ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/SciTech/SAGE ) which is why we would like to get it into Fedora. The SAGE project seems to be happy with the code working reliably. I should probably take a look at how they build it ( http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/was/sage/spkg/standard/symmetrica-2.0.p2.spkg ) but as far as I know they just build a libsymmetrica.a too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457925] Review Request: biniax - A unique arcade logic game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457925
--- Comment #14 from Christoph Wickert
2008-12-11 14:23:06 EDT ---
I think there is something that needs to fixed in the spec:
> Patch0: %{name}-%{version}-gfx.patch
> Patch1: %{name}-%{version}-snd.patch
> Patch2: %{name}-%{version}-save.patch
> Patch3: %{name}-%{version}-optflags.patch
This does not work, because during an update you will have to rename all the
patches. This also means removing and re-adding them from/to cvs. If the names
of the patches are changed one does not get the diff in the commit.
So it needs to be:
Patch0: %{name}-1.2-gfx.patch
...
The version in the patch name is always the version where the patch was added
but not the version of the package itself.
> Requires: hicolor-icon-theme
This should IMO be removed. Without the icon-theme there is no icon in the
desktop file, but this does no real harm. hicolor-icon-theme is installed as
soon as gtk2 gets installed. In the very unlikely case that somebody really
does not have gtk2, he most likely doesn't have a menu ether or at least not
menu that shows icons (think of openbox or fluxbox for example).
Nevertheless none of these issues is really important enough to justify an
update, fixing in CVS is sufficient.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475860] Review Request: libmsn - Library for connecting to the MSN Messenger service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475860 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter 2008-12-11 14:12:56 EDT --- Clean, simple package. Use of macros correct, consistent. Confirmed need for patch (eew). My only minor suggestions would be to not include README, COPYING in -devel (it's already in main pkg), and to add %doc THANKS (can be done post review). 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 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 #11 from Victor Bogado 2008-12-11 14:10:46 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 475861] Review Request: gnustep-gui - The GNUstep gui 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=475861 --- Comment #1 from Jochen Schmitt 2008-12-11 13:33:38 EDT --- I have done some rework related to the BuildRequires: Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/gnustep-gui/gnustep-gui.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/gnustep-gui/gnustep-gui-0.14-2.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 476056] New: Review Request: gnustep-back - The GNUstep backend 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: gnustep-back - The GNUstep backend library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476056 Summary: Review Request: gnustep-back - The GNUstep backend library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: joc...@herr-schmitt.de QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/gnustep-back/gnustep-back.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/gnustep-back/gnustep-back-0.14.0-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: This is a backend for the GNUstep gui Library which allows you to use the GNUstep gui Library on an X Windows System (other backends will be added later to allow you to use the GNUstep gui Library in other windowing environments). This package includes development headers too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468003] Review Request: qmtest - an automated software test execution tool.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468003 --- Comment #19 from Stefan Seefeld 2008-12-11 13:29:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #18) > By the way, if you are upstream all I want is that you put the explicit > declaration in the COPYING or README that this software is licensed under > GPL version 2. I'm sorry if I don't follow what you are saying. The COPYING file already starts with GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 So how could I be more explicit than that ? (And, in the same spirit: What do you exactly mean by "check the license in the technical point of view" ? The cited paragraph clearly says that in case nothing else is available the information (which includes the license version header right on top of COPYING) will be used.) So, right now there are two references: the website, as well as the top of the COPYING file; both agree on the license being GPLv2. What else does it take to convince you ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475860] Review Request: libmsn - Library for connecting to the MSN Messenger service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475860 --- Comment #5 from Rex Dieter 2008-12-11 13:14:05 EDT --- I'll pretend I didn't just think about MSN(tm) either, and just start reviewing. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468003] Review Request: qmtest - an automated software test execution tool.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468003 --- Comment #18 from Mamoru Tasaka 2008-12-11 13:13:20 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17) > The sources explicitly say "for license terms please see the file COPYING". > And even if you disregard that (to me clear) statement, the FAQ you cite > mentions this (point 4.): > > "Technically it could be under any license, but if all we have to go by is > COPYING, we'll guess COPYING is accurate." In this case we don't do any _guess_ (if possible) but check the license in the technical point of view. > Finally, as I'm the maintainer, and my employer the copyright holder, it is > not > a matter of discussion what license QMTest is released under, but rather, > where > to put the licensing terms to make our users aware of them. > > FWIW, the qmtest.com website (http://www.codesourcery.com/qmtest) clearly > states that QMTest is available under GPL version 2. Is that what you are > asking for ? I no longer trust website license information because I have seen many cases in which the website license information is wrong due to various reasons. By the way, if you are upstream all I want is that you put the explicit declaration in the COPYING or README that this software is licensed under GPL version 2. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475860] Review Request: libmsn - Library for connecting to the MSN Messenger service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475860 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu 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 451302] Review Request: kopete-bonjour
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451302 Tejas Dinkar changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Tejas Dinkar 2008-12-11 13:03:38 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: kopete-bonjour Short Description: Bonjour Plugin For Kopete in KDE 4.0 and 4.1 Owners: rdieter tejas Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: Note: No devel branch needed, as this becomes a part of kopete in 4.2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473972] Review Request: nufw - Authentication Firewall Suite for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473972 --- Comment #8 from Dan Horák 2008-12-11 12:57:57 EDT --- Please update release for every published iteration of the spec file (assuming the upstream version is still the same, new version starts with release 1) and put the description changes made into the ChangeLog section. It makes easier for the reviewer to track the changes. The submitter should run rpmlint on its packages. The output of rpmlint run on all rpms (source + binary) is here: libnuclient.x86_64: W: no-documentation - can be ignored libnuclient.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libnuclient.so.3.0.0 libnuclient.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libnuclient.so.3.0.0 - the ldconfig calls are now attached to the main package, but they must exist for the libnuclient subpackage libnuclient.x86_64: E: useless-provides libnuclient - no need to manually provide "libnuclient" libnuclient.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libnuclient.so.3.0.0 e...@glibc_2.2.5 - should not be an issue, but a statement or explanation (e.g. from upstream) would be nice rpmlint has a hint: "This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork() context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the situation." libnuclient-devel.x86_64: E: useless-provides libnuclient-devel - no need to manually provide "libnuclient-devel" nufw.src: W: strange-permission setup-python_nufw.py 0755 - can be ignored nufw.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/nufw-2.2.20/acls - non-ASCII content must re-encoded in UTF-8 - see http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/ultimatestunts/devel/ultimatestunts.spec?revision=1.5&view=markup for an example nufw.x86_64: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/nufw - initscript must not be marked as %config nufw.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/nufw - only the most important system service can be enabled by default - you can find all about initscripts at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript nufw.x86_64: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/nufw $prog - no problem nufw.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/nufw - see above nufw-nuauth.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/nuauth/modules/libxml_defs.so nufw-nuauth.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/nuauth/modules/libsession_expire.so nufw-nuauth.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/nuauth/modules/libsession_authtype.so - there are still 3 modules that are not using -avoid-version - all patched should be sent to upstream and a notice should be present in the the spec (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment) nufw-nuauth.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%postun userdel - it is not allowed to delete the user (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UsersAndGroups) nufw-nuauth.x86_64: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/nuauth nufw-nuauth.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/nuauth nufw-nuauth.x86_64: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/nuauth $prog nufw-nuauth.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/nuauth nufw-nuauth.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name nuauth - see above (nufw) nufw-nuauth-log-prelude.x86_64: W: no-documentation - can be ignored nufw-nutcpc.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Networking/Other - perhaps forgotten from previous update, I suggest Applications/Internet nufw-nutcpc.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/nutcpc ['/usr/lib64'] pam_nufw.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /lib64/security/pam_nufw.so ['/usr/lib64'] - there are few tricks, how to block rpath - see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Beware_of_Rpath - but because rpath affect only these 2 files, it can be a little bug in the makefiles (explicit using of -rpath), so it could be patched nufw-utils.x86_64: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/bin/nutop - can be fixed with "dos2unix --keepdate $the_file", do not forget to add dos2unix as BuildRequires - see above in the non-utf-content python-nufw.x86_64: W: no-documentation - can be ignored -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468003] Review Request: qmtest - an automated software test execution tool.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468003 --- Comment #17 from Stefan Seefeld 2008-12-11 12:52:11 EDT --- The sources explicitly say "for license terms please see the file COPYING". And even if you disregard that (to me clear) statement, the FAQ you cite mentions this (point 4.): "Technically it could be under any license, but if all we have to go by is COPYING, we'll guess COPYING is accurate." Finally, as I'm the maintainer, and my employer the copyright holder, it is not a matter of discussion what license QMTest is released under, but rather, where to put the licensing terms to make our users aware of them. FWIW, the qmtest.com website (http://www.codesourcery.com/qmtest) clearly states that QMTest is available under GPL version 2. Is that what you are asking for ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 451302] Review Request: kopete-bonjour
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451302 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter 2008-12-11 12:50:18 EDT --- $ rpmlint *.rpm kopete-bonjour.x86_64: W: no-documentation kopete-bonjour.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. 1. (cosmetic) drop needless %post/%postun scriptlets (no shlibs here), can do post review, before doing any official builds. Looks clean, follows kde4 template, uses macros correctly. I'll take your word for it wrt functionality (ie, it works), I can't test this myself right now. 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 226568] Merge Review: xmlto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226568 Till Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||) --- Comment #4 from Till Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-11 12:41:40 EDT --- Please note comment: 3. -- 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 451302] Review Request: kopete-bonjour
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451302 --- Comment #5 from Tejas Dinkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-11 12:41:12 EDT --- Hey, the new spec file and SRPM are here: http://tejas.fedorapeople.org/fedora-review/kopete-bonjour.spec http://tejas.fedorapeople.org/fedora-review/kopete-bonjour-1.0.3-3.fc10.src.rpm I've built this exact RPM using koji also: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=993713 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=993700 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226568] Merge Review: xmlto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226568
Till Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Till Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-11 12:40:21 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Can it be possible to ask "fedora-cvs?" without formal review?
This is possible for packages that are under "Merge Review", because they are
already included in Fedora.
About the package:
- Why is xsltproc required via a path instead of using libxslt? If libxslt
cannot be used, please explain with a comment in the spec.
- It is recommended not to use %makeinstall, is there a reason to use it? It
builds fine here with:
make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- parallel make is not used:
make %{?_smp_mflags}
- Is the touch command still needed? If it is, please explain why in the spec
file or fix it upstream:
touch doc/xmlto.xml doc/xmlif.xml
- License Tag should be GPLv2+ according to the header in xmlto.in
- License is in the tarball, but not in %doc:
COPYING
- There is more documentation missing:
README ChangeLog AUTHORS NEWS, maybe FAQ if it is planned to add more to this
file in the future
- Btw. fedorahosted provides a way to distribute releases without using the
scm, but I do not know how to upload something there:
https://fedorahosted.org/releases/
If you want and permissions are open in cvs, I can fix at least the issues that
do not need a comment from you. I will then perform a full review later.
--
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 474193] Review Request: glog - A C++ application logging 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=474193 --- Comment #9 from John A. Khvatov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-11 12:22:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > Are you trying to set the flag while logged in as ivaxer fedoraproject.org? Yes. > That won't work because the [EMAIL PROTECTED] address doesn't have the extra > bugzilla > permissions to set it. The email address you have registered in FAS (ivaxer > stingr net) will work. Thanks. (Previously, I changed email to fp.o via bugzilla web interface and started to use ivaxer fp.o login) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 451302] Review Request: kopete-bonjour
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451302 Rex Dieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added 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 468003] Review Request: qmtest - an automated software test execution tool.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468003 --- Comment #16 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-11 12:15:54 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) > I think you are wrong here. The file 'COPYING' that is referenced throughout > the code clearly states that this is version 2. > > Please note that the license text itself starts somewhat below, with > > GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE >TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION > > So, the condition of section 9 is met by the very beginning of the COPYING > file. So actually no. See this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ Putting GPLv2 text only does not mean that the software is licensed under GPLv2. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474193] Review Request: glog - A C++ application logging 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=474193 John A. Khvatov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 450442] Review Request: rubygem-tiddlywiki_cp - Copy tiddlers to files and vice versa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450442
Till Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #1 from Till Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-11 12:07:25 EDT ---
It is easier to understand what you are writing about the rpmlint output, if
you also attach it:
rubygem-tiddlywiki_cp.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/tiddlywiki_cp-0.5.3/scripts/txt2html 0644
Don't you get this error?
rubygem-tiddlywiki_cp.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/tiddlywiki_cp-0.5.3/test/content/ignored#
rubygem-tiddlywiki_cp.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/tiddlywiki_cp-0.5.3/test/content/a
rubygem-tiddlywiki_cp.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/tiddlywiki_cp-0.5.3/test/content/d/CVS
rubygem-tiddlywiki_cp.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/tiddlywiki_cp-0.5.3/test/content/b
rubygem-tiddlywiki_cp.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/tiddlywiki_cp-0.5.3/test/content/a.div
My rpmbuild also complains, that some files are mentioned multiple times in
%files:
%{gemdir}/gems/%{gemname}-%{version}/
%doc %{geminstdir}/README.txt
The first path already includes the second one, because at the beginning of
the spec, %geminstdir is defined as follows:
%define geminstdir %{gemdir}/gems/%{gemname}-%{version}
Or in other words:
%{gemdir}/gems/%{gemname}-%{version}/
can be directly written as %{geminstdir}/ in %files.
>From the Review Guidelines:
| - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
- Btw. the e-mail address in %changelog is probably only valid on your local
machine.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226420] Merge Review: slang
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226420 Jon Ciesla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-11 12:02:26 EDT --- On current version: rpmlint on SRPM is clean. rpmlint on RPMS: slang.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/slang-2.1.4/changes.txt The character encoding of this file is not UTF-8. Consider converting it in the specfile's %prep section for example using iconv(1). Easily fixable. slang-static.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. Fix if static-only docs exist. Source tag should be Source0. Comment in spec on patch upstream status. Otherwise, looks good on full review, no other blockers. Also noticed that this review had been flagged + but never assigned or closed. -- 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 475823] Review Request: menu-cache - Caching mechanism for freedesktop.org compilant menus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475823 --- Comment #2 from Sebastian Vahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-11 12:06:14 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Sebastian, I'm CC*ing you because the upcoming 0.4.0 version of your lxpanel > package will need this. Yeah, I've already seen this in the cvs commits of lxpanel but haven't expected an update so soon. Thanks for the CC. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459979] Review Request: mlt - Toolkit for broadcasters, video editors, media players, transcoders
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459979 --- Comment #33 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-11 11:57:29 EDT --- (In reply to comment #32) > Actually, there are i686 class CPUs without MMX, for example Pentium Pro and I'm against to worry about something lower than a PIII specially on a library dedicated for multimedia features. The current workaround would be to allow a i686 target that can have mmx sse and sse2 enabled on x86_32 arch. CPU that aren't capable of theses optimization should remains with the plain i386 package which is the only package that will be provided within the Fedora repositories. Once that said, if the i686 target_cpu doesn't fit well for our needs, then we might want to introduce another ix86 varriant as a rpm macro. But in any cases, Please note that the mmx miss on some ix86 CPU are more important in some Via C3 cases than in pentium pro -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468003] Review Request: qmtest - an automated software test execution tool.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468003 --- Comment #15 from Stefan Seefeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-11 11:58:47 EDT --- I think you are wrong here. The file 'COPYING' that is referenced throughout the code clearly states that this is version 2. Please note that the license text itself starts somewhat below, with GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION So, the condition of section 9 is met by the very beginning of the COPYING 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 469471] Review Request: skinlf - Java look and feel for swing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469471 Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #16 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-11 12:00:13 EDT --- Seems good, approved. - This package (skinlf) is APPROVED 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 226161] Merge Review: mrtg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226161 Jon Ciesla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-11 11:43:12 EDT --- Very good, thanks! APPROVED -- 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 474193] Review Request: glog - A C++ application logging 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=474193 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #8 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-11 11:43:38 EDT --- Are you trying to set the flag while logged in as ivaxer fedoraproject.org? That won't work because the [EMAIL PROTECTED] address doesn't have the extra bugzilla permissions to set it. The email address you have registered in FAS (ivaxer stingr net) will 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 226412] Merge Review: setup
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226412 Jon Ciesla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-11 11:43:27 EDT --- rpmlint on SRPM clean. rpmlint on RPMS: setup.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/securetty 0600 The file can't be read by everybody. If this is expected (for security reasons), contact your rpmlint distributor to get it added to the list of exceptions for your distro (or add it to your local configuration if you installed rpmlint from the source tarball). setup.noarch: E: zero-length /etc/environment setup.noarch: E: zero-length /etc/motd setup.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/shadow 0400 The file can't be read by everybody. If this is expected (for security reasons), contact your rpmlint distributor to get it added to the list of exceptions for your distro (or add it to your local configuration if you installed rpmlint from the source tarball). setup.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/gshadow 0400 The file can't be read by everybody. If this is expected (for security reasons), contact your rpmlint distributor to get it added to the list of exceptions for your distro (or add it to your local configuration if you installed rpmlint from the source tarball). setup.noarch: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /etc/profile.d This package owns a directory that is part of the standard hierarchy, which can lead to default directory permissions or ownerships being changed to something non-standard. setup.noarch: E: zero-length /etc/exports setup.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/lastlog This package contains files in /var/log/ without adding logrotate configuration for them. These should all be filed as rpmlint exceptions. Page in URL is default Trac page. Might want to look into that. :) Source tag needs to include a URL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL Should also be Source0, not simply Source. I don't see any license information in the source or the website, just the spec. Add something to the upstream documenting the licensing, then include it in %doc. Otherwise, very simple package, no other blockers. -- 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 226161] Merge Review: mrtg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226161
--- Comment #4 from Vitezslav Crhonek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-11 11:31:15
EDT ---
Hi,
(In reply to comment #1)
> rpmlint on SRPM:
>
> mrtg.src:22: E: prereq-use vixie-cron
> The use of PreReq is deprecated. In the majority of cases, a plain Requires is
> enough and the right thing to do. Sometimes Requires(pre), Requires(post),
> Requires(preun) and/or Requires(postun) can also be used instead of PreReq.
Fixed. Changed to plain Requires.
>
> mrtg.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 44)
> The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic
> annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.
>
Fixed.
>
> mrtg.src: W: strange-permission filter-requires-mrtg.sh 0755
> A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
> Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
>
> mrtg.src: W: strange-permission filter-provides-mrtg.sh 0755
> A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
> Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
>
> What are these about? If they're good this way, please document what they do
> in the spec.
These files are used to filter perl provides/requires. I think it's not
necessary to document them in spec, because it's often used and well known
technique.
These files are also NOT listed to be included in final package.
For more info see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packagin/Perl#External_filtering
>
> rpmlint on RPMS:
>
> mrtg.i386: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
> /usr/share/doc/mrtg-2.16.2/contrib/whodo/GIFgraph/GIFgraph/samples/sample54.dat
> mrtg.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/mrtg-2.16.2/CHANGES
>
> Tons of this all over the docs. Fix.
I fixed only this one:
mrtg.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/mrtg-2.16.2/CHANGES
Because CHANGES is real documentation file. The rest is in
/usr/share/doc/mrtg-2.16.2/contrib/* - just ideas for mrtg users over different
operating systems. I feel it's right to make it available but untouched.
>
> mrtg.i386: E: wrong-script-interpreter
> /usr/share/doc/mrtg-2.16.2/contrib/TCH/dualpri.pl "c:\perl\bin"
> This script uses an incorrect interpreter.
> mrtg.i386: E: wrong-script-interpreter
> /usr/share/doc/mrtg-2.16.2/contrib/TCH/hiperdsp.pl "c:\perl\bin"
> This script uses an incorrect interpreter.
> mrtg.i386: E: wrong-script-interpreter
> /usr/share/doc/mrtg-2.16.2/contrib/TCH/dualt1.pl "c:\perl\bin"
> This script uses an incorrect interpreter.
> mrtg.i386: E: wrong-script-interpreter
> /usr/share/doc/mrtg-2.16.2/contrib/cfgmaker_cisco/cfgmaker.cisco
> "/pkg/gnu/bin/perl"
> This script uses an incorrect interpreter.
I have same reason as above to don't touch these files (often examples from
other operating systems).
>
> mrtg.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
> There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share.
There are only perl modules in /usr/lib{64}/* and this it's AFAIK standard
place for them and mrtg will search them here.
>
> mrtg.i386: W: dangerous-command-in-%trigger rm
>
> Fix.
This trigger is used when very old mrtg (2.9.17) is uninstalled. This warning
isn't real problem... But it was added in Feb 2003, so I think it's time to
remove it completely.
>
> License tag should by GPLv2+.
License changed to GPLv2+.
>
> Otherwise, full review looks good, no other blockers.
Changes are commited to the devel branch. Let me know if you have any comments
or anything else, otherwise feel free to close this review.
--
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 475410] Review Request: symmetrica - A Collection of Routines for Solving Symmetric Groups
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475410 Jerry James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jerry James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-11 11:22:10 EDT --- I'll take this. I'll do a full review shortly, but here are some preliminary notes. First, I sent email to upstream asking them to clarify the license issue. I'll let you know how they respond. Second, I'm not comfortable with the way this package is compiled. Ideally it would be built as a shared library in a main package, with the header files in a -devel subpackage. Is there some reason why this cannot be done? That would also let you turn debuginfo generation back on, another issue that bothers me. Also, the spec file as currently written is compiling the example/test code into the library, too. That should not be done. The example/test code could be included as documentation or, if there is enough of it, made into a separate -examples subpackage. I'm also concerned about the .doc extension on the documentation files. That is usually used for Microsoft Word documents, but these are plain text. Worse, they contain information that should be in man pages. Do you have any kind of relationship with upstream? Can you talk them into making real man pages? If they have not got the expertise but will accept contributions, I can generate the man pages for them. Note that I will not block the review on this issue, as it is an upstream problem. Another upstream issue: if they want help building a proper Makefile that generates a shared library, I can help with that, too. Compiling produces a really alarming list of GCC warnings. I see warnings about uninitialized variables, control reaching the end of non-void functions, ambiguous else clauses, unused static functions and variables, incorrect pointer types being passed to functions, incorrect printf format directives, etc. Does this code work reliably for you? This looks like a very interesting package! Thanks for submitting 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 468003] Review Request: qmtest - an automated software test execution tool.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468003 --- Comment #14 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-11 11:17:12 EDT --- Well, again would you tell me where it is indicated that this package is licensed under GPLv2+, not GPL+ (GPL at any version)? Note that just putting GPLv2 license text in the tarball does not mean that the software is licensed under GPLv2 (because of section 9 of GPLv2 license text). If there is GPLv2 license text, but no other files specifies the version of GPL, then it is regarded that it is licensed under GPL+. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475884] Review Request: gbdfed - Bitmap Font Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475884 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-11 11:12:52 EDT --- gbdfed-1.4-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gbdfed-1.4-1.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 475884] Review Request: gbdfed - Bitmap Font Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475884 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-11 11:12:48 EDT --- gbdfed-1.4-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gbdfed-1.4-1.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476025] New: Review Request: mythes-ga - Irish thesaurus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mythes-ga - Irish thesaurus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476025 Summary: Review Request: mythes-ga - Irish thesaurus Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/mythes-ga.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/mythes-ga-0.20071001-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Irish thesaurus as usable by OpenOffice.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 452413] Review Request: BkChem - Chemical drawing program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452413 --- Comment #19 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-11 10:55:54 EDT --- Good news! I just received a reply from Beda. There follows: > - This package uses some files from Python powerwidgets > "Pmw", which is actually in Fedora as "python-pmw" > (bug 462250: I reviewed...). > Is it possible to make this package use system-wide > python-pmw? > (simply creating symlinks will be easier?) I am packaging Pmw together with BKChem because I had to fix a bug or two there and there was no upstream maintenance of Pmw going on. However, it is quite possible that the Pmw package in Fedora also has these fixes, so it might be possible to use the Fedora package. You can try it by simply deleting all files named Pmw*.py in bkchem and see if it would work when the Fedora package is installed. If yes, I could prepare a special package without Pmw. > > - I guess packaging oasa seperately will be better. (and packaging it > separetely will pe necessari some code changes?) > I have started to release OASA just this year because of some interest in it. It would of course be able to have two separate packages, but then more effort would have to be put into keeping them in sync - when I release BKChem I always expect that it is used with the version of OASA that is current at the time. Failing to match versions of OASA and BKChem could lead to subtle and hard to find errors. On the other hand, it is not much of a problem for me to create a package of BKChem without OASA. > I know you must be very busy and although I am not an experienced programmer, > if you guide me to do the necessary changes, I'll be happy to help. > All these things would not require that much time. Just let me know what I should remove from the package (as I do now with Piddle) and I will do it. --- So, I'll start the tests with python-pmw, reporting to Beda if some changes are necessary. Also, I will start the process of packaging OASA, and as is customary, I will request a review of the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473412] Review Request: kopete-cryptography - Encrypts and signs messages in Kopete using the OpenPGP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473412 --- Comment #28 from Till Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-11 10:37:43 EDT --- Thanks to Kevin I found the new kdenetwork package now: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=74325 I did not expect this to happen this fast, therefore ihmo the kopete-cryptography package should be updated with a: Requires: kdenetwork >= 4.1.3-2 And both updates should be put together in one update request at Bodhi to make sure, that they are pushed at the same time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 434583] Review Request: tunctl - Create and remove virtual network interfaces
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434583 Lubomir Rintel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Lubomir Rintel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-11 10:21:40 EDT --- Package change Request === Package Name: tunctl Branches: 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 452413] Review Request: BkChem - Chemical drawing program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452413 --- Comment #18 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-11 10:25:32 EDT --- At least would you would you submit a seperate review request for orsa and make BkChem depend on (use) seperated orsa? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226544] Merge Review: wpa_supplicant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544 --- Comment #9 from Dan Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-11 10:17:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > Meanwhile this entry is a year old, but the latest attached spec file has only > changed in minor things (for my personal use). This includes an update to the > latest development release 0.6.6 (it works) and an update of the madwifi > headers to the latest subversion trunk. The madwifi headers are no longer required as the ath5k and ath9k drivers cover that hardware, and are in the upstream kernel already. > I'd like to make the suggestion to ask the developer for support for the ath5k > and ath9k driver, since it seems to me that those drivers don't work directly > with the wpa_supplicant but only in connection with NetworkManager. NetworkManager uses wpa_supplicant for all connections, so if it works in NM, it works in plain wpa_supplicant too. I've successfully used wpa_supplicant with ath5k hardware just fine... -- 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 475884] Review Request: gbdfed - Bitmap Font Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475884 Tom "spot" Callaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #2 from Tom "spot" Callaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-11 10:13:16 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: gbdfed Short Description: Bitmap Font Editor Owners: spot Branches: F-9 F-10 devel InitialCC: ... and it's 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 475860] Review Request: libmsn - Library for connecting to the MSN Messenger service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475860 John5342 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: libmsn -|Review Request: libmsn - |Library for connecting to |Library for connecting to |Microsoft's MSN Messenger |the MSN Messenger service |service | --- Comment #4 from John5342 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-11 10:12:16 EDT --- Updated bug title to reflect new package summary -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468003] Review Request: qmtest - an automated software test execution tool.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468003 Stefan Seefeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] | |.ca)| --- Comment #13 from Stefan Seefeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-11 10:04:51 EDT --- I uploaded a new spec file and a new source rpm: http://synopsis.fresco.org/download/srpm/qmtest-2.4-4.fc9.src.rpm http://synopsis.fresco.org/download/srpm/qmtest.spec The spec file now indicates "GPLv2+ and Open Publication", and the code contains some fixes to be compatible with Python 2.6. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
