[Bug 480434] New: Review Request: xcall - GTK+ Packet Radio Terminal Program for ham radio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: xcall - GTK+ Packet Radio Terminal Program for ham radio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480434 Summary: Review Request: xcall - GTK+ Packet Radio Terminal Program for ham radio Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: randyn3...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://dp67.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/SPECS/xcall.spec SRPM URL: http://dp67.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/SRPMS/xcall-0.17-2.fc9.src.rpm Description: GTK+ Packet Radio Terminal Program for ham radio by Joop Stakenborg p...@amsat.org 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. * Fri Jan 16 2009 Randall J. Berry 'Dp67' d...@fedoraproject.org 0.17-2 - Edit spec for standards - Attempt build for F9 - mock build for f9/10/devel i386 - koji scratch build f9/10/devel all arches -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480435] New: Review Request: perl-MooseX-MultiInitArg - Attributes with aliases for constructor arguments
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-MooseX-MultiInitArg - Attributes with aliases for constructor arguments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480435 Summary: Review Request: perl-MooseX-MultiInitArg - Attributes with aliases for constructor arguments Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/MooseX-MultiInitArg 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-MooseX-MultiInitArg.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-MooseX-MultiInitArg-0.01-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: If you've ever wanted to be able to call an attribute any number of things while you're passing arguments to your object constructor, Now You Can. The primary motivator is that I have some attributes that were named inconsistently, and I wanted to rename them without breaking backwards compatibility with my existing API. Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1060872 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474768] Review Request: jpilot-backup - An enhanced backup plugin for J-Pilot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474768 --- Comment #12 from Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info 2009-01-17 04:55:46 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) a scratch build for dist-rawhide failed with BuildrootError: could not init mock buildroot, mock exited with status 20 is that an error on my side? No idea without the detailed logs, but guess not. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Comment #45 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-17 05:27:02 EDT --- I do not want to sound rude, but Martin, none of your comments is related to package submission / review. Please be as kind as to solve your problem[s] via more appropriate channels. -- 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 480435] Review Request: perl-MooseX-MultiInitArg - Attributes with aliases for constructor arguments
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480435
manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-17
05:30:57 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL+ or Artistic
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: 261aaebf3bf65db9c6f3da65d41e878e18730939
MooseX-MultiInitArg-0.01.tar.gz
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: noarch, perl module
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[-] %check is present and the test passes.
*** APPROVED *** but please replace %description with something more relevant.
The primary motivator is that I have some attributes that were named
inconsistently, and I wanted to rename them without breaking backwards
compatibility with my existing API. does not fit my bill.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476979] Review Request: python-libasyncns - Python binding for the libasyncns
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476979 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-17 05:36:36 EDT --- python-libasyncns-0.7-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-libasyncns-0.7-2.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480355] Review Request: mythes-it - Italian 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=480355 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-17 05:54:37 EDT --- * builds fine in mock * rpmlint is silent * license text included and is open source (AGPLv3+) * upstream source verified as 54ce337bae79c04fa429b003f8cb1eb82ec65d43 thesaurus2_it_02_09_l_2008_11_29.zip APPROVED but please preserve all timestamps by using: for i in th_it_IT_README th_it_IT_ChangeLog th_it_IT_AUTHORS; do iconv -f ISO-8859-1 -t UTF-8 $i $i.new ---touch -r $i.new $i --- mv -f $i.new $i 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 480356] Review Request: mythes-mi - Maori 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=480356 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-17 06:00:33 EDT --- * RPM name is OK * Source mythes-mi-0.1.20080630-beta.tar.gz is the same as upstream, d5c2332e6b6ccdc90ba6cd96378e9c225c4a24aa mythes-mi-0.1.20080630-beta.tar.gz * Builds fine in mock * rpmlint empty * File list looks OK * license is OK (public domain) and included in the rpm 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 456190] Review Request: dosemu - dos emulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456190 --- Comment #19 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-01-17 05:57:48 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 480279] Package Review for gnome-globalmenu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480279 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Package Reveiew for |Package Review for |gnome-globalmenu . |gnome-globalmenu -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475799] Review Request: pidgin-musictracker - Pidgin displays the musictrack currently playing in your status
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475799 --- Comment #17 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-01-17 06:24:29 EDT --- Julio, incorporate the the changes suggested in Comment #13, sooner or later somebody will make a full review and go on with the steps mentioned at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join . To get sponsored: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225735] Merge Review: ethtool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225735 Robert Scheck red...@linuxnetz.de changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|182235 | AssignedTo|jgar...@redhat.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #9 from Robert Scheck red...@linuxnetz.de 2009-01-17 06:27:18 EDT --- Tom has clarified, that the legal points are solved for Fedora, removing the blocker. --- snipp --- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:53:41 -0500 From: Tom spot Callaway To: Robert Scheck Cc: Sven Lankes, Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: COPYING for ethtool On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 15:50 +0100, Robert Scheck wrote: On Fri, 16 Jan 2009, Tom spot Callaway wrote: As Jeff has pointed out, he's not inserting COPYING, the autotool stack is. This is one main reason why we cannot go off the version it uses. GPLv3 COPYING gets stuck in all sorts of things that are not GPLv3 as a result. That's wrong. It's caused, because he's putting no COPYING there in GIT already and thus the --add-missing at autotools are putting that into. As far as I know, an existing COPYING gets not overwritten except with use of maybe --force (which can be overwritten by IIRC --foreign). Well, feel free to try to convince him. We don't need this additional step for Fedora licensing. ~spot --- snapp --- To continue the review as co-maintainer, I've made multiple changes to the package, I'm suggesting the following for formal review. Update to git seems to be necessary for me as it solves some bug reports and feature requests. In order to make me and Sven happy, I've solved the COPYING thing downstream. Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/ethtool.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/ethtool-6-2.20090115git.src.rpm Sven, will you go for the formal 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 467388] Review Request: mingw32-pdcurses - Curses library for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467388 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-17 06:51:27 EDT --- mingw32-pdcurses-3.4-3.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw32-pdcurses-3.4-3.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 467391] Review Request: mingw32-gdbm - MinGW port of GNU database routines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467391 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-17 06:52:03 EDT --- mingw32-gdbm-1.8.0-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw32-gdbm-1.8.0-1.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 478640] Review Request: mingw32-dlfcn - Implements a wrapper for dlfcn (dlopen dlclose dlsym dlerror)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478640 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-17 06:54:01 EDT --- mingw32-dlfcn-0-0.3.r11.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw32-dlfcn-0-0.3.r11.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 225735] Merge Review: ethtool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225735
manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro
Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-17
06:55:09 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPLv2
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package:
e2cc807b553da0f7df337638aeb4319afd6f48db ethtool-6.tar.gz
Note: this is a snapshot version
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Final provides and requires are sane.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: koji
[x] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] %check is present and the test passes.
=== Issues ===
1. Timestamps are not preserved
2. autoconf is already brought in by automake so it's not really needed to BR
it
*** 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 225735] Merge Review: ethtool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225735 --- Comment #11 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-17 06:56:05 EDT --- Comment #10 was meant for the src.rpm from #9... -- 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 467399] Review Request: mingw32-readline - MinGW port of readline for editing typed command lines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467399 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-17 06:51:47 EDT --- mingw32-readline-5.2-4.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw32-readline-5.2-4.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 467398] Review Request: mingw32-gettext - GNU libraries and utilities for producing multi-lingual messages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467398 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-17 06:54:43 EDT --- mingw32-gettext-0.17-7.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw32-gettext-0.17-7.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 451189] Review Request: rancid - Really Awesome New Cisco confIg Differ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451189 --- Comment #32 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-17 08:20:33 EDT --- I will close this bug as NOTABUG if no response from the reporter is received within ONE WEEK. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 466301] Review Request: ario - Music Player Daemon Client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466301 --- Comment #19 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-17 08:23:06 EDT --- ping again? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(kana...@kanarip.c ||om) --- Comment #19 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-17 08:25:07 EDT --- Please let me know if there is any news from the upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478470] Review Request: mrpt - The Mobile Robot Programming Toolkit (MRPT)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478470 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(joseluisblan...@g ||mail.com) --- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-17 08:32:57 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 478662] Review Request: dustin-dustismo-fonts - font with serif and sans-serif versions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478662 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nicolas.mail...@laposte.net --- Comment #13 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-01-17 08:34:56 EDT --- Also need to take care of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_(FAQ)#fpc_renaming (sorry) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 #21 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-17 08:31:40 EDT --- Please submit push request also for F-9 on bodhi. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478662] Review Request: dustin-dustismo-fonts - font with serif and sans-serif versions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478662 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225735] Merge Review: ethtool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225735 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-17 08:43:12 EDT --- ethtool-6-2.20090115git.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ethtool-6-2.20090115git.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 426387] Merge reviews to be completed for F9
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426387 Bug 426387 depends on bug 225735, which changed state. Bug 225735 Summary: Merge Review: ethtool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225735 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225735] Merge Review: ethtool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225735 Robert Scheck red...@linuxnetz.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #12 from Robert Scheck red...@linuxnetz.de 2009-01-17 08:41:52 EDT --- Manuel, thanks for doing the review. As we've spoken in IRC, preserving timestamps is not supported in GIT. Seems that old-style CVS and SVN have a useful feature more at that point rather the cool GIT... ;-) I've commited my updates into CVS, tagged and built packages from it. -- 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 225735] Merge Review: ethtool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225735 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-17 08:43:10 EDT --- ethtool-6-2.20090115git.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ethtool-6-2.20090115git.fc9 -- 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 477883] Review Request: rubygem-nokogiri - An HTML, XML, SAX, and Reader parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477883 Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dpie...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480483] New: Review Request: gaupol - Subtitle editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: gaupol - Subtitle editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480483 Summary: Review Request: gaupol - Subtitle editor Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: co...@gnome.eu.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/gaupol.spec SRPM URL: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/gaupol-0.13.1-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Editor for text-based subtitle files. It supports multiple subtitle file formats and provides means of correcting texts and timing subtitles to match video. The user interface is designed with attention to batch processing of multiple documents and convenience of translating. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477883] Review Request: rubygem-nokogiri - An HTML, XML, SAX, and Reader parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477883 Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dpie...@redhat.com 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 477883] Review Request: rubygem-nokogiri - An HTML, XML, SAX, and Reader parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477883 Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477883] Review Request: rubygem-nokogiri - An HTML, XML, SAX, and Reader parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477883
--- Comment #2 from Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com 2009-01-17 09:20:10
EDT ---
No license file is included in the .gem. Can you ask the upstream to put a
COPYING or LICENSE file into the gem? Not a negative on the review, but a
suggestion for upstream if you could pass it along.
In the spec the file hoe.rb is deleted. Is this package dependant on hoe? You
should add rubygem(hoe) as a dependency.
The install target directory used is the relative path ./ rather than
%{buildroot} macro. Please fix that.
Perhaps I'm misreading, but I don't see where the RPM claims to own
%{geminstdir}, instead it just lists the contents of that directory. Can you
make it more explicit?
For the subpackage ruby-nokogiri, the Requires: does not match the packaging
guidelines: the guideline says the non-gem should require rubygem(%{name}),
but the spec file has %{name}. Please fix that.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467416] Review Request: mingw32-cairo - MinGW Windows Cairo 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=467416
Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl
Bug 467416 depends on bug 467397, which changed state.
Bug 467397 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-libpng - MinGW Windows Libpng
library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467397
What|Old Value |New Value
Resolution||NEXTRELEASE
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
--- Comment #3 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl
2009-01-17 09:18:58 EDT ---
I see you've used these commands in the %install phase:
rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mingw32_libdir}/charset.alias
rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mingw32_libdir}/libcairo.a
Why is the charset.alias file removed?
Why haven't you used %configure --disable-static to prevent building the static
library?
Do we really want to pull in freetype and fontconfig as a dependency? Cairo
provides a native Win32 implementation for font rendering, so I guess adding a
dependency on freetype and fontconfig only introduces unnecessary bloat.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474768] Review Request: jpilot-backup - An enhanced backup plugin for J-Pilot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474768 Patrick C. F. Ernzer p...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #13 from Patrick C. F. Ernzer p...@redhat.com 2009-01-17 09:21:32 EDT --- as discussed on IRC, make build in devel worked, so a problem with scratch closing NEXTRELEASE as per step 13 of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/NewPackageProcess -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474768] Review Request: jpilot-backup - An enhanced backup plugin for J-Pilot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474768 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-17 09:29:18 EDT --- jpilot-backup-0.53-5.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jpilot-backup-0.53-5.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 469052] Review Request: ris-linux - RIS for Linux - Boot winpe from the net / Ris Windows Installation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469052 Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com 2009-01-17 09:48:40 EDT --- Thanks, I owe you a beverage of your choice ;-) New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ris-linux Short Description: RIS for Linux - Boot winpe from the net / Ris Windows Installation Owners: kanarip Branches: EL-4 EL-5 F9 F-10 InitialCC: kanarip -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467416] Review Request: mingw32-cairo - MinGW Windows Cairo 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=467416 --- Comment #4 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-17 09:53:59 EDT --- Dan Berrange is probably in a better position to comment on these questions since he did the original packaging. Why haven't you used %configure --disable-static to prevent building the static library? Yes, that's a bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478767] Review Request: spring - Realtime strategy 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=478767 Aurelien Bompard gau...@free.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(ianwel...@gmail.c ||om) --- Comment #7 from Aurelien Bompard gau...@free.fr 2009-01-17 09:56:03 EDT --- I'll go ahead and review all four package Thanks ! Problem: Spec file given and spec file in SRPM don't match. See attachment. Oops, sorry about that. Looks like I made a last-minute update to the srpm and I forgot to re-upload the spec file. The dependency on spring-maps-default should be there. The Description doesn't seem very descriptive. Can you be more specific? OK, I've tried to add a few lines from Wikipedia, and I've added a README.Fedora file. Commas clutter up the BRs and Requires fields. Well, actually I kind of like it like that, it make separation clearer when using versioned requires. But I don't care very much... :) - Since spring-engine is a subpackage of spring with the same versioning, the requires between these packages need to be version/release specific. Hmm, I'm not sure, because the spring package here is just a meta-package to pull all needed package to play the game. The meta-package in itself does not care which version of the spring-engine is installed. It's not like -devel subpackages. It's not a problem to add the version either, so if you really feel it should be a versioned dependency, I'll add it. The --vendor option to desktop-file-install is no longer wanted in new packages. Oh, thanks, I missed that. There is a new upstream release available Woot ! Updated, thanks. New SRPM: http://gauret.free.fr/fichiers/rpms/fedora/spring/spring-0.78.1.1-1.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 225856] Merge Review: gpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225856
Robert Scheck red...@linuxnetz.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zprik...@redhat.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.d
||e
Flag||fedora-review-
--- Comment #6 from Robert Scheck red...@linuxnetz.de 2009-01-17 09:54:15
EDT ---
Adding Zdenek Prikryl (zprikryl), seems currently to be the maintainer. So
lets go for beginning the review:
[ DONE ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be
posted in the review.
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-10-x86_64/result/gpm-*
gpm.src:17: E: prereq-use /sbin/chkconfig /sbin/ldconfig /sbin/install-info
gpm.src:459: W: macro-in-%changelog config
gpm.src:518: W: macro-in-%changelog preun
gpm.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot A mouse server for the Linux console.
gpm.src: W: strange-permission gpm.init 0755
gpm.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gpm-1.20.5/TODO
gpm.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot A mouse server for the Linux console.
gpm.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libgpm.so.2.1.0
gpm.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libgpm.so.2.1.0
e...@glibc_2.2.5
gpm.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libgpm.so.2.1.0
exit@@GLIBC_2.2.5
gpm.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/gpm
gpm.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/gpm
gpm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gpm-devel.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot A mouse server for the Linux
console.
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 13 warnings.
$
[ OK ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption
[FAILED] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
- See below for details
[ OK ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines
[ OK ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license.
[ OK ] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of
the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[ OK ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for
this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package,
please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
- 3915bdd6bf947ef867752a30b4be2387 gpm-1.20.5.tar.gz
- 3915bdd6bf947ef867752a30b4be2387 gpm-1.20.5.tar.gz.1
- 71ee9125414e5a4c3916c5f5f35ee76ca1397f9d gpm-1.20.5.tar.gz
- 71ee9125414e5a4c3916c5f5f35ee76ca1397f9d gpm-1.20.5.tar.gz.1
[ OK ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture.
[ N/A ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on
an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the
spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST
have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package
does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST
be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line
[ OK ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except
for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply
common sense.
[ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.
[ OK ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[ N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager
must state this fact in the request for review, along with the
rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without
this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker
[ OK ] MUST: A package
[Bug 477883] Review Request: rubygem-nokogiri - An HTML, XML, SAX, and Reader parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477883
--- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-17
09:57:22 EDT ---
Thank you for initial comments.
(In reply to comment #2)
No license file is included in the .gem. Can you ask the upstream to put a
COPYING or LICENSE file into the gem? Not a negative on the review, but a
suggestion for upstream if you could pass it along.
- The license clause is included in README{,.ja}.txt.
In the spec the file hoe.rb is deleted. Is this package dependant on hoe? You
should add rubygem(hoe) as a dependency.
- No. This is (hoe.rb) only needed for Rakefile and so not needed at
runtime.
The install target directory used is the relative path ./ rather than
%{buildroot} macro. Please fix that.
- In this case (i.e. in the case rubygem creates C module)
the way of packaging gem into rpm is different. Actually I wrote
the packaging draft and it was accepted by FPC/FESCo. Please refer to
my first comment on this bug.
Perhaps I'm misreading, but I don't see where the RPM claims to own
%{geminstdir}, instead it just lists the contents of that directory. Can you
make it more explicit?
- Well, I already write this explicitly.
-
%files
%defattr(-,root, root,-)
%{ruby_sitearch}/%{gemname}/
%dir%{geminstdir}/ ---
%doc%{geminstdir}/[A-Z]*
%{geminstdir}/[a-l]*/
-
For the subpackage ruby-nokogiri, the Requires: does not match the packaging
guidelines: the guideline says the non-gem should require rubygem(%{name}),
but the spec file has %{name}. Please fix that.
- Requires %{name} = %{version}-%{release} will pull in
rubygem(%{gemname}), and this dependency is more strict than
Requires: rubygem(%{gemname}), so this should be okay.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225856] Merge Review: gpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225856 --- Comment #7 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de 2009-01-17 10:08:07 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=329283) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=329283) Patch to solve some issues in gpm spec file -- 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 461277] Package Review Request: radial
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461277 --- Comment #3 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-01-17 10:20:52 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 225856] Merge Review: gpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225856 --- Comment #8 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de 2009-01-17 10:17:28 EDT --- You're currently adding Requires: bash = 2.0 to gpm package. Is this really needed? Bash 2.0 existed before 1998 in Red Hat Linux - that was just before Red Hat Linux 5.2. If we still need it, please explain the need for it. Do we really need the static library? If yes, we need a -static subpackage. But personally, I don't see a need for a *.a file - can we remove it? I think, we can ignore macro-in-%changelog warnings, there's nothing which gets expanded here. Do we really need to package the TODO file as %doc? That seems to be needed for upstream, not for downstream, yes? If we need it, we have to convert it to UTF8 using e.g. the following: iconv -f iso-8859-1 -t utf-8 -o TODO.utf8 TODO touch -c -r TODO TODO.utf8 mv -f TODO.utf8 TODO We can't fix W: strange-permission gpm.init 0755 as CVS won't let us do this, AFAIK. Please have a look in the future, that you're importing/adding files with the correct permissions, please (0644) - thanks. BTW, somebody an idea, what causes W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/ libgpm.so.2.1.0 and how to solve it? Zdenek - please take action, thank you. -- 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 478770] Review Request: springlobby - A lobby client for the spring RTS game engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478770 --- Comment #1 from Aurelien Bompard gau...@free.fr 2009-01-17 10:22:34 EDT --- * Sat Jan 17 2009 Aurelien Bompard abomp...@fedoraproject.org 0.0.1.10387-1 - version 10387 - remove vendor from the desktop file New SRPM: http://gauret.free.fr/fichiers/rpms/fedora/spring/springlobby-0.0.1.10387-1.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 221717] Review Request: agg - C++ rendering framework, move from core to shared
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=221717 --- Comment #31 from Patrice Dumas pertu...@free.fr 2009-01-17 10:24:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #30) Hmmm, but it can't be the new libtool, as agg was last built in February 2008. WTF?! Looks like Tibbs rebuilt it locally? pkgconfig(libagg) deps are fairly recent. -- 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 480485] New: Review Request: cpmtools - Programs for accessing CP/M disks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: cpmtools - Programs for accessing CP/M disks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480485 Summary: Review Request: cpmtools - Programs for accessing CP/M disks Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: co...@gnome.eu.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/cpmtools.spec SRPM URL: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/cpmtools-2.8-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: This package allows to access CP/M file systems similar to the well-known mtools package, which accesses MSDOS file systems. I use it for file exchange with a Z80-PC simulator, but it works on floppy devices as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453395] Review Request: libmapi - OpenChange: Microsoft Exchange access with native protocols
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453395 --- Comment #16 from Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com 2009-01-17 10:38:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) Still needs BuildRequires: zlib-devel Fixed: http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SPECS/openchange.spec http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SRPMS/openchange-0.8-0.7.svn949.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 221717] Review Request: agg - C++ rendering framework, move from core to shared
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=221717 --- Comment #32 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-01-17 11:05:03 EDT --- Yes, I always do a local mock build. If you want, just think of it as a predictor of problems you'll see when you next rebuild. -- 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 473205] Review Request: gPlanarity - puzzle 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=473205 --- Comment #11 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-17 11:14:54 EDT --- ping again? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467416] Review Request: mingw32-cairo - MinGW Windows Cairo 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=467416 --- Comment #5 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl 2009-01-17 11:20:32 EDT --- Do you know if he's reading along this review ticket or should he be CC'ed? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480486] Review Request: emacs-htmlize - Convert buffer text and decorations to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480486 --- Comment #1 from Debarshi Ray debarshi@gmail.com 2009-01-17 11:58:02 EDT --- Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1062155 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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
Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
--- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-17
11:57:43 EDT ---
Please change the release number every time you change
your spec file
(In reply to comment #6)
- in %{_javadocdir} move the docs to %{name}-%{version} and make a symlink
%{name} pointing to that dir.
This is not needed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480486] New: Review Request: emacs-htmlize - Convert buffer text and decorations to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: emacs-htmlize - Convert buffer text and decorations to HTML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480486 Summary: Review Request: emacs-htmlize - Convert buffer text and decorations to HTML Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: debarshi@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/emacs-htmlize.spec SRPM URL: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/emacs-htmlize-1.34-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: HTMLize is an add-on package for GNU Emacs. It converts the buffer text and the associated decorations to HTML. The conversion is quite sophisticated, it understands non-ascii characters, looks up colours in the X11 RGB database, and can generate either CSS or old style font bits. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 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 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 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(r...@fedoraproject ||.org) --- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-17 11:59:55 EDT --- Would you update the status of this bug? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460727] Review Request: gnujump - A jumping game which is a clone of xjump
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460727 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(boni.vi...@gmail. ||com) --- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-17 12:02:49 EDT --- ping again? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 469997] Review Request: ratproxy - A passive web application security assessment 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=469997 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-17 12:38:20 EDT --- Well, for 1.51-3: - I guess Solaris.README is not needed. Other things are okay. -- This package (ratproxy) 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 473583] Review Request: WordNet - A lexical database for the english language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473583 Debarshi Ray debarshi@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|debarshi@gmail.com | AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|debarshi@gmail.com 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 221717] Review Request: agg - C++ rendering framework, move from core to shared
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=221717 --- Comment #33 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org 2009-01-17 13:16:07 EDT --- So it's a libtool bug which should be fixed in libtool. Do you really want me to try to hack around it in agg? I'd much rather it get fixed for everyone in libtool. -- 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 473583] Review Request: WordNet - A lexical database for the english language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473583 Debarshi Ray debarshi@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW CC||debarshi@gmail.com AssignedTo|debarshi@gmail.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org Flag|fedora-review? | --- Comment #6 from Debarshi Ray debarshi@gmail.com 2009-01-17 13:15:04 EDT --- Did not notice that you need a sponsor. Unassigning. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473583] Review Request: WordNet - A lexical database for the english language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473583
--- Comment #7 from Debarshi Ray debarshi@gmail.com 2009-01-17 13:25:15
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
I took a look at the debain patches and as far as I could tell, the man page
that you pointed out and the security patch mentioned above were the only ones
that I think were relevant to this Fedora package.
Both have been included.
The manual pages append WN to the section numbers. There is a Debian patch to
fix this. It will be good to have in our package too.
Umm, although i agree that naming across distributions is a good thing, I
would
say naming the package as the way the original (upstream) package, is a better
thing.
Not really.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#General_Naming lays
equal, if not more stress, on having consistency across distributions.
There are a couple of other reasons:
a. 'wordnet' is a common noun where as 'WordNet' refers to the actual package
from princeton ...don't believe me ? Ask WordNet :) ...
That is not a problem.
b. Changing the %{name} in the spec file, implies that i'd have to change the
name of the included tarball
Not at all.
I could still rename the package if you still think it is a good thing.
Finally it is going to be yours and your sponsor's call, but I think wordnet
is better.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480435] Review Request: perl-MooseX-MultiInitArg - Attributes with aliases for constructor arguments
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480435 --- Comment #2 from Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2009-01-17 13:28:59 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-MooseX-MultiInitArg Short Description: Attributes with aliases for constructor arguments Owners: cweyl Branches: F-9 F-10 devel InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473583] Review Request: WordNet - A lexical database for the english language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473583 --- Comment #8 from Debarshi Ray debarshi@gmail.com 2009-01-17 13:31:03 EDT --- + The package fails to build in a chroot: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1062215 To fix this add 'BuildRequires: libXft-devel'. + Header and lib*.so should not be a part of the main package. Instead they should be put in a -devel sub-pacakge. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Devel_Packages -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226036] Merge Review: liboil
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226036
Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||caol...@redhat.com,
||oget.fed...@gmail.com,
||walt...@redhat.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|oget.fed...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-01-17
13:27:02 EDT ---
I reviewed this package. There are some issues, questions and suggestions that
I'll bring into your attention.
* The latest version is not packaged! Please update to the latest version.
* The HACKING file should be packaged, possibly in the %doc of devel
? The examples directory can go into the %doc of devel too.
? Some files in m4 and the file missing indicates GPLv2+ license.But I don't
think these make their way into the package, so I guess BSD is good enough.
* I don't think glib2-devel is required to build the package. I built an
identical package in mock without BR'in glib2-devel. Some of the examples
require glib2-devel. So if you are going to package those examples you'll need
to require glib2-devel in the devel subpackage.
* A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory. The directory %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/ is created but not owned. So
the devel package should require gtk-doc which is the rightful owner of that
directory.
! Try to make use of the %{name} macro.
* From the SPEC file:
# multi-jobbed make makes the build fail:
# ./build_prototypes_doc liboilfuncs-doc.h
# /bin/sh: ./build_prototypes_doc: No such file or directory
make %{?_smp_mflags}
Isn't there a contradiction here? What is that commented-out section for?
* From the SPEC file:
# Disable Altivec, so that liboil doesn't SIGILL on non-Altivec PPCs
# See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=252179#c15
#sed -i 's/CFLAGS=$CFLAGS -maltivec/CFLAGS=$CFLAGS -fno-tree-vectorize
-Wa,-maltivec/' configure
#sed -i 's/LIBOIL_CFLAGS -maltivec/LIBOIL_CFLAGS -fno-tree-vectorize
-Wa,-maltivec/' configure
Do we still need these lines in the SPEC file?
Adding Colin and Caolan to CC since they were the last two known maintainers.
Sorry if this was not desired
--
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 480435] Review Request: perl-MooseX-MultiInitArg - Attributes with aliases for constructor arguments
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480435 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 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 467384] Review Request: mingw32-nsis - Nullsoft Scriptable Install 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=467384 --- Comment #2 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org 2009-01-17 13:44:37 EDT --- Ping? My changes have still not been merged into your repo. :-( In addition, we still need to look into the optflags issue (i.e. RPM optflags are supposed to be used at least for the native Fedora parts and currently aren't). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468462] Review Request: sbackup - Simple Backup Suite for desktop use
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468462 Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-17 14:29:48 EDT --- Thank you Christoph New Package CVS Request === Package Name: sbackup Short Description: Simple Backup Suite for desktop use Owners: cassmodiah Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-5 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468462] Review Request: sbackup - Simple Backup Suite for desktop use
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468462 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-01-17 14:26:47 EDT --- Let me see: sbackup-0.10.5-5 - owns the cron files - requires gvfs - has nice desktop files - includes updated patches that now work as expected and as we figured out on irc. I see no other blockers and issues and therefore the package is 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 478470] Review Request: mrpt - The Mobile Robot Programming Toolkit (MRPT)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478470 Jose Luis joseluisblan...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(joseluisblan...@g | |mail.com) | --- Comment #11 from Jose Luis joseluisblan...@gmail.com 2009-01-17 15:02:47 EDT --- Sorry for the delay... Yes, I read everything and have some things already solved, other still pending. I wanted to ask you about some small doubts: 1) Until now, I'm building rpms/srpms by invoking: rpmbuild -ta TARBALL.tar.gz, where the .spec file is inside the tarball. I guess this is not the best practice, since any change in the spec file requires an update of the whole tarball. I've read the rpmbuild manpage but not found a command such as rpmbuild -ta TARBALL.tar.gz SOME-FLAG mrpt.spec which allows me to provide the spec file separately. Any ideas about this? 2) Package-splitting: First of all, please explain why you want to split each library into different subpackges. I understand here the splitting into mrpt-XXX library packages, right? My intention is to separate dependencies, so an application (in a future package) might require only a subset of the libs. Do you want me to explicitly explain this in comments in the spec file? Again, thanks a lot for all the time you're expending on the review. I think I'll upload a new revised version by the next week. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478470] Review Request: mrpt - The Mobile Robot Programming Toolkit (MRPT)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478470 --- Comment #12 from Jose Luis joseluisblan...@gmail.com 2009-01-17 15:14:06 EDT --- I've solved my previous point (1) about rpmbuild and tarballs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480434] Review Request: xcall - GTK+ Packet Radio Terminal Program for ham radio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480434 --- Comment #1 from Randall Berry randyn3...@gmail.com 2009-01-17 15:25:15 EDT --- update to f10 Spec URL: http://dp67.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/SPECS/xcall.spec SRPM URL: http://dp67.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/SRPMS/xcall-0.17-3.fc10.src.rpm * Sat Jan 17 2009 Randall J. Berry 'Dp67' d...@fedoraproject.org 0.17-3 - Update source to f-10 - fix lint error -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474980] Review Request: ovm - Open Verification Methodology : IEEE 1800 SystemVerilog standard
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474980 --- Comment #7 from Jon Stanley jonstan...@gmail.com 2009-01-17 15:49:51 EDT --- FESCo believes that this is of value. However, we'd like to see iverilog or other similar tools for dealing with this content in at the same time, realizing that those tools might not be useful right now, however. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479953] Review Request: gtksourceviewmm - C++ wrapper for the gtksourceview widget 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=479953 Denis Leroy de...@poolshark.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #6 from Denis Leroy de...@poolshark.org 2009-01-17 17:05:03 EDT --- Jochen, thanks for the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 469291] Review Request: uml_utilities - Utilities for user-mode linux kernel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469291 Paul Wouters p...@xelerance.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(p...@xelerance.co | |m) | --- Comment #9 from Paul Wouters p...@xelerance.com 2009-01-17 17:53:46 EDT --- I'll check the things you mentioned. And of course, it built fine for me. I'm using my own package on our dev servers :P -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473367] Review Request: autotrust - DNSKEY trust anchor update utility that uses RFC-5011
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473367 --- Comment #8 from Paul Wouters p...@xelerance.com 2009-01-17 17:55:29 EDT --- Okay, upstream has fixed the issue. I've created a package with their rc release, though I'll redo the package in a day or two when the final release is made by upstream. Spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/autotrust/autotrust.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/autotrust/autotrust-0.2.1rc1-1.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 226180] Merge Review: mysql
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226180
Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||a...@redhat.com,
||mcla...@redhat.com,
||oget.fed...@gmail.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|oget.fed...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-01-17
18:01:40 EDT ---
The full review arrived!
* Summary and especially the description are bizarre. Can you update them. You
can find these on the manpage:
Xinerama - API for Xinerama extension to X11 Protocol
Xinerama is a simple library designed to interface the Xinerama Extension
for
retrieving information about physical output devices which may be combined
into a single logical X screen.
* rpmlint says
libXinerama.src:18: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86-libs
libXinerama.src:18: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xorg-x11-libs
libXinerama.src:32: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86-devel
libXinerama.src:32: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xorg-x11-devel
libXinerama.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/libXinerama-1.0.3/AUTHORS
libXinerama.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/libXinerama-1.0.3/README
libXinerama.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided XFree86-libs
libXinerama.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11-libs
libXinerama-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided XFree86-devel
libXinerama-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11-devel
The zero-length files are obviously not needed so they should be removed. The
obsoletes look very problematic. Can you fix those (or alternatively explain
them in the SPEC file as comments)?
* BR: libXau-devel is not needed. Afaict it is not used.
* BRs: libX11-devel pkgconfig and xorg-x11-proto-devel are not needed. They
will be picked up by libXext-devel.
* Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability). This applies to the devel package.
! Try to make use of the %{name} macro (e.g. files sections).
* Parallel make must be supported whenever possible. If it is not supported,
this should be noted in the SPEC file as a comment.
Added Adam and Matthias to CC since they are the last two known maintainers.
Sorry if this was not desired.
--
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 226075] Merge Review: libXinerama
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226075
Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||a...@redhat.com,
||mcla...@redhat.com,
||oget.fed...@gmail.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|oget.fed...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-01-17
18:05:35 EDT ---
The full review arrived!
* Summary and especially the description are bizarre. Can you update them. You
can find these on the manpage:
Xinerama - API for Xinerama extension to X11 Protocol
Xinerama is a simple library designed to interface the Xinerama Extension
for
retrieving information about physical output devices which may be combined
into a single logical X screen.
* rpmlint says
libXinerama.src:18: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86-libs
libXinerama.src:18: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xorg-x11-libs
libXinerama.src:32: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86-devel
libXinerama.src:32: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xorg-x11-devel
libXinerama.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/libXinerama-1.0.3/AUTHORS
libXinerama.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/libXinerama-1.0.3/README
libXinerama.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided XFree86-libs
libXinerama.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11-libs
libXinerama-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided XFree86-devel
libXinerama-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11-devel
The zero-length files are obviously not needed so they should be removed. The
obsoletes look very problematic. Can you fix those (or alternatively explain
them in the SPEC file as comments)?
* BR: libXau-devel is not needed. Afaict it is not used.
* BRs: libX11-devel pkgconfig and xorg-x11-proto-devel are not needed. They
will be picked up by libXext-devel.
* Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability). This applies to the devel package.
! Try to make use of the %{name} macro (e.g. files sections).
* Parallel make must be supported whenever possible. If it is not supported,
this should be noted in the SPEC file as a comment.
Added Adam and Matthias to CC since they are the last two known maintainers.
Sorry if this was not desired.
--
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 226180] Merge Review: mysql
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226180 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW CC|a...@redhat.com,| |mcla...@redhat.com | AssignedTo|oget.fed...@gmail.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #2 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-01-17 18:03:48 EDT --- Shoot! Wrong bug. Sorry for the mess. I'll review this next. -- 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 226180] Merge Review: mysql
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226180 --- Comment #3 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-01-17 18:24:56 EDT --- I can't find the koji entry for the new version.. I guess it is still being worked on. fitzsim, can you provide a SRPM when you're done? -- 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 480380] Review Request: python-epdb - extended python debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480380 Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jkeat...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jkeat...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review?, ||needinfo?(jmfor...@linuxtx. ||org) --- Comment #1 from Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com 2009-01-17 18:31:39 EDT --- Spec looks very clean This appears to be a noarch package, there is no compiled code in the python modules. Add a BuildArch: noarch so that this builds noarch. Once that's done, rpmlint is silent. epdb/telnetclient.py is unlicensed, unlike other files, should probably put a copyright/license on it. Upstream sha256sums match. -- Summary -- Add BuildArch: noarch to make this a noarch package Perhaps get upstream to apply a copyright/license on epdb/telnetclient.py -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478662] Review Request: dustin-dustismo-fonts - font with serif and sans-serif versions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478662 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-17 18:39:31 EDT --- dustin-dustismo-fonts-20030318-3.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dustin-dustismo-fonts-20030318-3.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 478662] Review Request: dustin-dustismo-fonts - font with serif and sans-serif versions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478662 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-17 18:37:51 EDT --- dustin-dustismo-fonts-20030318-3.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dustin-dustismo-fonts-20030318-3.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 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 #22 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2009-01-17 19:10:58 EDT --- (In reply to comment #21) Please submit push request also for F-9 on bodhi. When I tried to submit updates on bodhi I kept getting 500 server errors. I'll try again. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 #23 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2009-01-17 19:15:58 EDT --- Ok, bodhi thinks that gfan-0.3-3.fc9 update already exists! But it doesn't show up in the list nor do searches show anything. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225999] Merge Review: libdrm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225999 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||oget.fed...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-01-17 19:56:26 EDT --- I'll review this package but please update to the latest version first (2.4.4) -- 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 478506] Review Request: trac-customfieldsadmin-plugin - expose ticket custom fields via web admin interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478506 --- Comment #3 from Ian Weller ianwel...@gmail.com 2009-01-17 20:29:35 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 478767] Review Request: spring - Realtime strategy 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=478767 Ian Weller ianwel...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(ianwel...@gmail.c | |om) | --- Comment #8 from Ian Weller ianwel...@gmail.com 2009-01-17 20:42:38 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) The Description doesn't seem very descriptive. Can you be more specific? OK, I've tried to add a few lines from Wikipedia, and I've added a README.Fedora file. Oops, I meant to say the Summary isn't very descriptive. But thanks for the other addition, too! - Since spring-engine is a subpackage of spring with the same versioning, the requires between these packages need to be version/release specific. Hmm, I'm not sure, because the spring package here is just a meta-package to pull all needed package to play the game. The meta-package in itself does not care which version of the spring-engine is installed. It's not like -devel subpackages. It's not a problem to add the version either, so if you really feel it should be a versioned dependency, I'll add it. This isn't a packaging requirement (I thought it was, silly me), but keep in mind that if this isn't followed, those users who update the spring package alone will not see an update to spring-engine. Of course, since this is a metapackage, the other deps wouldn't seen an update either unless you hardcoded other values. Full review in a bit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225998] Merge Review: libdmx
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225998
Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||a...@redhat.com,
||mcla...@redhat.com,
||oget.fed...@gmail.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|oget.fed...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-01-17
21:07:17 EDT ---
This pretty much has the same issues with libXinerama. I just copied/pasted the
same bits from that review. Note that there are a few differences (the last two
issues).
* Summary and especially the description are bizarre. Can you update them. You
can find these on the manpage:
DMX - X Window System DMX (Distributed Multihead X) extension
The DMX extension provides support for communication with and control of
Xdmx
server. Attributes of the Xdmx server and of the back-end screens attached
to
the server can be queried and modified via this protocol.
* rpmlint says
libdmx.src:18: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86-libs
libdmx.src:18: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xorg-x11-libs
libdmx.src:32: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86-devel
libdmx.src:32: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xorg-x11-devel
libdmx.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/libdmx-1.0.2/README
libdmx.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/libdmx-1.0.2/AUTHORS
libdmx.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided XFree86-libs
libdmx.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11-libs
libdmx-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided XFree86-devel
libdmx-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11-devel
The zero-length files are obviously not needed so they should be removed. The
obsoletes look very problematic. Can you fix those (or alternatively explain
them in the SPEC file as comments)?
* BR: libXau-devel is not needed. Afaict it is not used.
* BRs: libX11-devel pkgconfig and xorg-x11-proto-devel are not needed. They
will be picked up by libXext-devel
* Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability). This applies to the devel package.
! Try to make use of the %{name} macro (e.g. files sections).
* Do we need this line?
#%dir %{_mandir}/man3x
* There is no make command in the SPEC file. The make is done via make
install which is not good. Please add a parallel make .
Adding Adam and Matthias to the CC since they were the last known maintainers.
Sorry if this was not desired.
--
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 480380] Review Request: python-epdb - extended python debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480380 Justin M. Forbes jmfor...@linuxtx.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(jmfor...@linuxtx. | |org)| --- Comment #2 from Justin M. Forbes jmfor...@linuxtx.org 2009-01-17 21:27:51 EDT --- Added BuildArch: noarch to spec and reuploaded. rpmlint python-epdb.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. License request on telnetclient.py has been sent to upstream via 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 480380] Review Request: python-epdb - extended python debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480380 --- Comment #3 from Justin M. Forbes jmfor...@linuxtx.org 2009-01-17 21:33:35 EDT --- jforbes in epdb, telnetclient.py has no license info in the file dugan oops jforbes just thought I would pass it along :) dugan definitely same license -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473583] Review Request: WordNet - A lexical database for the english language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473583 --- Comment #9 from steve st...@lonetwin.net 2009-01-17 22:00:56 EDT --- Debarshi, Thanks for the through review and all your comments ! (In reply to comment #7) The manual pages append WN to the section numbers. There is a Debian patch to fix this. It will be good to have in our package too. Fixed. I also noticed that although the Debian patch fixed the names of the man pages, it didn't fix the references with the pages itself. I've done those too. I could still rename the package if you still think it is a good thing. Finally it is going to be yours and your sponsor's call, but I think wordnet is better. Fixed. (In reply to comment #8) + The package fails to build in a chroot: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1062215 To fix this add 'BuildRequires: libXft-devel'. Fixed. + Header and lib*.so should not be a part of the main package. Instead they should be put in a -devel sub-pacakge. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Devel_Packages Fixed. The new srpm and spec file are at: http://lonetwin.net/wordnet.spec http://lonetwin.net/wordnet-3.0-3.fc10.src.rpm - steve -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478767] Review Request: spring - Realtime strategy 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=478767
--- Comment #9 from Ian Weller ianwel...@gmail.com 2009-01-17 21:59:11 EDT
---
rpmlint output:
spring.src:65: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build
installprefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix} \
spring.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: spring-0.77-allegro.patch
spring.i386: E: no-binary
- I'm not exactly sure why the rpm-buildroot-usage message is appearing.
- If you're not using Patch0, remove it.
- The metapackage needs to be noarch.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478767] Review Request: spring - Realtime strategy 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=478767 --- Comment #10 from Ian Weller ianwel...@gmail.com 2009-01-18 00:42:42 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) - The metapackage needs to be noarch. Or, even better: nuke the -engine package and make it just the spring package. Then just have spring pull in the other necessary packages. This would save quite a bit of trouble, I think, as the metapackage seems excessively useless... I'm told they should be avoided if at all possible and it seems so here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480380] Review Request: python-epdb - extended python debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480380 Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com 2009-01-18 01:46:40 EDT --- Alright, looks good now. Go ahead and apply for the 'packager' group in the Fedora account system and I'll approve you. In the mean time also do the CVS request so that your package module will be waiting for you once that'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
