[Bug 485993] Review Request: perl-CPANPLUS-Shell-Default-Plugins-Diff - Diff module versions from the CPANPLUS shell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485993 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) 2009-02-18 03:15:41 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i386). koji Build =>http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1133957 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url 0d8ad0864a840a7ae2654953c2d0f380 CPANPLUS-Shell-Default-Plugins-Diff-0.01.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test gave All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=5, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.00 usr 0.00 sys + 0.06 cusr 0.00 csys = 0.06 CPU) + Package perl-CPANPLUS-Shell-Default-Plugins-Diff-0.01-2.fc11 => Provides: perl(CPANPLUS::Shell::Default::Plugins::Diff) = 0.01 Requires: perl(CPANPLUS::Error) perl(Data::Dumper) perl(File::Basename) perl(Locale::Maketext::Simple) perl(Params::Check) perl(Text::Diff) perl(strict) perl(vars) 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 486016] Review Request: perl-CPANPLUS-Shell-Default-Plugins-RT - Check for rt.cpan.org tickets from within the CPANPLUS shell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486016 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) 2009-02-18 03:13:34 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i386). koji Build =>http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1134149 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url 1514ab7dd81d8481955a8e48f9cb552b CPANPLUS-Shell-Default-Plugins-RT-0.01.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test gave All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=5, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.01 usr 0.00 sys + 0.05 cusr 0.01 csys = 0.07 CPU) + Package perl-CPANPLUS-Shell-Default-Plugins-RT-0.01-1.fc11 => Provides: perl(CPANPLUS::Shell::Default::Plugins::RT) = 0.01 Requires: perl(CPANPLUS::Error) perl(Data::Dumper) perl(LWP::Simple) perl(Locale::Maketext::Simple) perl(Params::Check) perl(strict) perl(vars) 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 486000] Review Request: perl-CPANPLUS-Shell-Default-Plugins-Changes - View a module's Changes file from the CPANPLUS shell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486000 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) 2009-02-18 03:15:30 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i386). koji Build =>http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1134038 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM + rpmlint reported for RPM. perl-CPANPLUS-Shell-Default-Plugins-Changes.noarch: W: filename-too-long-for-joliet perl-CPANPLUS-Shell-Default-Plugins-Changes-0.02-1.fc11.noarch.rpm ==> can be ignored as package just follows upstream name. + source files match upstream url 3a828b717dc6c2bbb455956212978507 CPANPLUS-Shell-Default-Plugins-Changes-0.02.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test gave All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=5, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.01 usr 0.00 sys + 0.05 cusr 0.00 csys = 0.06 CPU) + Package perl-CPANPLUS-Shell-Default-Plugins-Changes-0.02-1.fc11 => Provides: perl(CPANPLUS::Shell::Default::Plugins::Changes) = 0.02 Requires: perl(CPANPLUS::Error) perl(DirHandle) perl(Locale::Maketext::Simple) perl(strict) perl(vars) perl(warnings) APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477570] Review Request: couchdb - A document database server, accessible via a RESTful JSON API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477570
--- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov 2009-02-18 03:21:30
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> > * I also think that the mochiweb should be excluded and packaged separately.
> > How different version, shipped with couchdb, from the upstream one?
> I think is better wait for first official release of mochiweb.
OK, let's wait. But keep im mind that you must remove mochiweb from couchdb as
soon as mochiweb will be packaged (someday, I hope) for Fedora.
> > * "Requires: %{_bindir}/icu-config" looks ugly. First, is it really need, to
> > have libicu-devel, to couchdb to work? Second, why you decided to require
> > %{_bindir}/icu-config instead of libicu-devel?
> Using "requires: libicu-devel results in two erros in rpmlint output:
Yes, but I still think that it's more understandable for others. In any case,I
personally still don't understand why couchdb needs devel-package to work.
> > * No need to explicitly require shadow-utils (as Hubert already mentioned).
> > * remove 'exit 0' in %pre
> I following http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UsersAndGroups
OK.
> > * use %{_initrddir} instead of %{_sysconfdir}
> I don't see is wrong here, i using %{_initrddir}/couchdb for sysvinit script.
Looks like this is my fault - I definitely confused with something. In any case
- the current spec-file looks ok in terms of using %{_initrddir} and
%{_sysconfdir}.
However some things still remains unresolved.
* sed oneliner at line 67 should be changed - you must use %{_localstatedir}
instead of /var
* Consider using /etc/sysconfig ( %{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig ) instead of
/etc/default for storing init-script's settings.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484042] Review Request: vlgothic-fonts - Japanese TrueType fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484042 Akira TAGOH changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-i18n-b...@redhat.com ||, ||ryo-dair...@users.sourcefor ||ge.net, ta...@redhat.com Component|Package Review |vlgothic-fonts AssignedTo|ta...@redhat.com|ryo-dair...@users.sourcefor ||ge.net --- Comment #7 from Akira TAGOH 2009-02-18 03:50:27 EDT --- Thanks. but strangely I don't see either of them at the component list at search page only. though it's available at the combo box on show_bug.cgi and submit-bug page. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485007] Review Request: rhnpush - Package uploader for the RHN Satellite/Spacewalk Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485007 --- Comment #6 from Marcela Maslanova 2009-02-18 04:00:09 EDT --- You can leave source code as you have it, but if Fedora is upstream you should upload tarball on proper place on https://fedorahosted.org/releases/ Also there is condition that you should package the latest release. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 #28 from Jose Luis 2009-02-18 04:02:40 EDT --- Perfect! These are the new versions then: SPEC: http://babel.isa.uma.es/mrpt/src-repo/rpm/mrpt.spec SRPM: http://babel.isa.uma.es/mrpt/src-repo/rpm/mrpt-0.6.5-0.2.20090213svn807.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 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 #29 from Jose Luis 2009-02-18 04:08:15 EDT --- I forgot to comment something: > - For tarball based on svn repository, I prefer to include revision > number rather than the date you checked the source because revision > number identifies the codes used in the srpm, however this is > left to your choice. I've used the svn number of the main mrpt repository, which is different from the SVN URL given within the SPEC file. The reason is that one directory of MRPT contains "prohibited code" (patent-pending) so I created a separate SVN repository just for publishing "clean releases", and that is the one referenced in the specfile. That's why I didn't add the "svn -r NUMBER" to the comments there, but just the svn URL. However, this is not a problem, since this reference can be seen as a svn "tag" directory, not the trunk, and it'll not change in the future. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 482757] Review Request: objcryst-fox - Viewing and solving crystal structures from powder diffraction data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482757 --- Comment #4 from Pascal 2009-02-18 04:41:59 EDT --- rpmlint is silent. I runned the spec through mock, fedora 9/10 and epel 5 both x86_64 and i386 are ok. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485954] Review Request: Marlin, A Sound Sample Editor for GNOME.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485954
--- Comment #3 from Dodji Seketeli 2009-02-18 05:21:10 EDT
---
Hello Joseph,
Thanks for the quick review. It's really appreciated.
Please find updated spec file, srpm and rpmlint output at:
http://people.redhat.com/dseketel/rpms/marlin/marlin.spec-2
http://people.redhat.com/dseketel/rpms/marlin/marlin-0.13-2.fc10.src.rpm
http://people.redhat.com/dseketel/rpms/marlin/marlin-0.13-2.rpmlint.txt
Koji tasks for the new srpm are:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1135111
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1135128
> --- Comment #2 from Joseph Smidt 2009-02-18
[...]
> 1. Please be consistant with macros. In some places you use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT,
> in others %{buildroot}.
Ok, only %{buildroot} is used now.
> 2. There is a Requires(pre) but no %pre section.
Ooopsy. Added.
> 3. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets says
> scrollkeeper
> should look like this:
> %post
> scrollkeeper-update -q -o %{_datadir}/omf/%{name} || :
Done.
> %postun
> scrollkeeper-update -q || :
>
Done.
> And like this for update-desktop-database:
>
> %post
> update-desktop-database &> /dev/null || :
>
Done.
> %postun
> update-desktop-database &> /dev/null || :
>
Done.
> Also, you need to add:
> Requires(post): desktop-file-utils
> Requires(postun): desktop-file-utils
Done.
> 4. Remember to post your output for rpmlint.
>
Done.
For the executable warnings, I have filed upstream bug
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=572255.
Thank you for your time.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485963] Review Request: perl-MooseX-GlobRef-Object - Store a Moose object in glob reference
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485963 Allisson Azevedo changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Allisson Azevedo 2009-02-18 05:24:30 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-MooseX-GlobRef-Object Short Description: Store a Moose object in glob reference Owners: allisson Branches: F-9 F-10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225683] Merge Review: dev86
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225683
--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov 2009-02-18 05:48:01
EDT ---
Notes:
* "BuildRequires: gawk" is redundant (gawk is in Exceptions list
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ). Not an
issue, though.
* Looks like this package disallows parallel builds. You should add note about
it.
* It's a good idea to add notes about patch status - upstreamed (with bz# or
with maillist's link), specific for fedora and therefore shouldn't be
upstreamed, etc
* What the purpose of expression at line 16?
Other things (except this sorrow situation with RPM_OPT_FLAGS, described above)
looks sane. So this is a formal review:
- rpmlint is not silent - see output (except numerous messages about
devel-file-in-non-devel-package, which may be safely ignored, and
binaryinfo-readelf-failed due to my powerpc arch):
[pe...@sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/dev86-*|grep -v
devel-file-in-non-devel-package | grep -v binaryinfo-readelf-failed
dev86.ppc: E: zero-length /usr/lib/bcc/include/math.h
dev86.ppc: E: zero-length /usr/lib/bcc/include/linux/ioctl.h
dev86.ppc: W: obsolete-not-provided bin86
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 105 warnings.
[pe...@sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/dev86-0.16.17-12.fc10.src.rpm
dev86.src:13: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes bin86
dev86.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 16, tab: line 44)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
[pe...@sulaco SPECS]$
I think that these messages are safe to ignore too.
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines .
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- File, containing the text of the license(s), MUST be included in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ No need to handle locales.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package doesn't contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
+ No large documentation files.
+ All files, that the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of
the application.
+/- Header files must be in a -devel package, but I'm in doubts whether this
rule can or cannot be applied in this case. And the next one.
+/- Static libraries must be in a -static package. See note above.
+ No pkgconfig(.pc) files
+ No .la libtool archives
+ Not a GUI application
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
--
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 483403] Review Request: A collection of quotes in French for gdesklets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483403 --- Comment #10 from MERCIER 2009-02-18 06:02:29 EDT --- quote: mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-05 13:43:29 EDT (-) [reply] --- Well, - This package itself is now good - For your other review requests: - I suggets that gdesklets related packages should be renamed to gdesklets-XX (there are already gdesklets-goodweather, gdesklets-quote-of-the-day on Fedora. It seems that both of these were reviewed by me) - I suggest that earth-and-moon rpm should be renamed to earth-and-moon-backgrounds (as other packages do). You can check how other packages are renamed by $ rpm -qf /usr/share/backgrounds/* (note: please post new srpms or your comments for this package on the corresponding review request, not on "this" review ticket) ___ mtasaka say this but in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481022 when sponsorized me for another package -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483498] Review Request: earth-and-moon desktop background theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483498 --- Comment #3 from MERCIER 2009-02-18 06:02:57 EDT --- quote: mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-05 13:43:29 EDT (-) [reply] --- Well, - This package itself is now good - For your other review requests: - I suggets that gdesklets related packages should be renamed to gdesklets-XX (there are already gdesklets-goodweather, gdesklets-quote-of-the-day on Fedora. It seems that both of these were reviewed by me) - I suggest that earth-and-moon rpm should be renamed to earth-and-moon-backgrounds (as other packages do). You can check how other packages are renamed by $ rpm -qf /usr/share/backgrounds/* (note: please post new srpms or your comments for this package on the corresponding review request, not on "this" review ticket) ___ mtasaka say this but in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481022 when sponsorized me for another package -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474992] Review Request: libirman - Library for IRMAN hardware
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474992 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added CC||t...@compton.nu --- Comment #6 from Tom Hughes 2009-02-18 06:05:31 EDT --- I believe lirc is now the effective upstream for this. I have just reworked the build process to make shared library builds possible (with the intention of then submitting a Fedora package) and I submitted those back to the lirc folks who committed them to their CVS tree. Getting lirc supporting libirman should be as simple as adding a libirman-devel BuildRequires to the lirc spec file - it was for me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479903] Review Request: gdesklet-slideshow - Cycle through a collection of pictures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479903 --- Comment #36 from MERCIER 2009-02-18 06:04:02 EDT --- quote: mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-05 13:43:29 EDT (-) [reply] --- Well, - This package itself is now good - For your other review requests: - I suggets that gdesklets related packages should be renamed to gdesklets-XX (there are already gdesklets-goodweather, gdesklets-quote-of-the-day on Fedora. It seems that both of these were reviewed by me) - I suggest that earth-and-moon rpm should be renamed to earth-and-moon-backgrounds (as other packages do). You can check how other packages are renamed by $ rpm -qf /usr/share/backgrounds/* (note: please post new srpms or your comments for this package on the corresponding review request, not on "this" review ticket) ___ mtasaka say this but in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481022 when sponsorized me for another package -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486000] Review Request: perl-CPANPLUS-Shell-Default-Plugins-Changes - View a module's Changes file from the CPANPLUS shell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486000 Chris Weyl changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486016] Review Request: perl-CPANPLUS-Shell-Default-Plugins-RT - Check for rt.cpan.org tickets from within the CPANPLUS shell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486016 Chris Weyl changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485993] Review Request: perl-CPANPLUS-Shell-Default-Plugins-Diff - Diff module versions from the CPANPLUS shell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485993 --- Comment #2 from Chris Weyl 2009-02-18 06:07:21 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-CPANPLUS-Shell-Default-Plugins-Diff Short Description: Diff module versions from the CPANPLUS shell 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 485993] Review Request: perl-CPANPLUS-Shell-Default-Plugins-Diff - Diff module versions from the CPANPLUS shell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485993 Chris Weyl changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486000] Review Request: perl-CPANPLUS-Shell-Default-Plugins-Changes - View a module's Changes file from the CPANPLUS shell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486000 --- Comment #2 from Chris Weyl 2009-02-18 06:07:32 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-CPANPLUS-Shell-Default-Plugins-Changes Short Description: View a module's Changes file from the CPANPLUS shell 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 486016] Review Request: perl-CPANPLUS-Shell-Default-Plugins-RT - Check for rt.cpan.org tickets from within the CPANPLUS shell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486016 --- Comment #2 from Chris Weyl 2009-02-18 06:07:39 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-CPANPLUS-Shell-Default-Plugins-RT Short Description: Check for rt.cpan.org tickets from within the CPANPLUS shell 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 483498] Review Request: earth-and-moon desktop background theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483498 --- Comment #4 from MERCIER 2009-02-18 06:26:36 EDT --- change the package name to earth-and-moon-backgrounds: rpmlint issue: - rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/earth-and-moon-backgrounds.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. - rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/earth-and-moon-backgrounds-0.1-2.fc10.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. - rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/earth-and-moon-backgrounds-0.1-2.fc10.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. _ http://bioinformatiques.free.fr/earth-and-moon-backgrounds-0.1-2.fc10.noarch.rpm http://bioinformatiques.free.fr/earth-and-moon-backgrounds-0.1-2.fc10.src.rpm http://bioinformatiques.free.fr/earth-and-moon-backgrounds.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 469931] Review Request: ipmiutil - IPMI Management Utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469931 --- Comment #7 from Prarit Bhargava 2009-02-18 06:32:46 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > Dan, > > SPEC URL: > http://ipmiutil.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/ipmiutil/trunk/doc/ipmiutil.spec?view=markup > SRC RPM URL: http://ipmiutil.sourceforge.net/FILES/ipmiutil-2.3.2-1.src.rpm > > RE Fedora-only spec files: I think there are lots of counter-examples of > projects in Fedora that have support for other distros (net-snmp for one), > which certainly makes sense for the project maintainers. Certainly we both > want to make the spec file as simple as possible. > > I could move the MIB and cron files from %post into the %files section, and > that would probably work for the init.d scripts as well. > > I'll move the two binaries in question to /usr/sbin like the others, but I'll > have to change 'events' to 'ievents'. And if I change some command names, > this > will have an impact on some legacy users, so the version will have to bump to > 2.4.0 or 3.0.0 when these changes are made. Hey Andrew, just wondering where things are with this? If you need any help please let me know. I'd like to see this get into F11 (which will be the base for RHEL6!). 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 469931] Review Request: ipmiutil - IPMI Management Utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469931 --- Comment #8 from Dan Horák 2009-02-18 06:52:25 EDT --- It is stuck on me :-( I have few ideas, but there is still a lot of work before it can be accepted into Fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483498] Review Request: earth-and-moon desktop background theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483498 --- Comment #5 from Pierre-YvesChibon 2009-02-18 06:55:57 EDT --- Which does not mean anything for the present package except that you have followed the advices given. This package is still *not* approved and need to be reviewed before so ! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483403] Review Request: A collection of quotes in French for gdesklets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483403 --- Comment #11 from manuel wolfshant 2009-02-18 06:54:22 EDT --- Mamoru did a review of the SPE package and made recommendations for gdesklets. This does not equal a review of the gdesklets package. Someone still has to do a review, just like for any other package. The only difference is that because you are now sponsored, anyone (not just a sponsor) can do it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483403] Review Request: A collection of quotes in French for gdesklets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483403 --- Comment #12 from manuel wolfshant 2009-02-18 06:56:53 EDT --- Not to mention that Mamoru made it quite clear that you still need to modify the gdesklets package (see the content of the parenthesis, emphasize on "please post new srpms [...]") -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Bernie Innocenti changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ber...@codewiz.org --- Comment #7 from Bernie Innocenti 2009-02-18 07:00:05 EDT --- I needed two patches in order to build on rawhide. I have submitted the first one here: http://code.google.com/p/gnome2-globalmenu/issues/detail?id=348 The second one is too much of a kludge. It seems that libxfce4panel-1.0.pc does no longer provide the externalplugindir variable. We should check with upstream. --- configure.ac.orig 2009-02-17 18:51:23.913429581 +0100 +++ configure.ac 2009-02-17 18:49:26.570430365 +0100 @@ -111,7 +111,8 @@ AS_IF([test "x$with_gnome_panel" != xno] [PKG_CHECK_MODULES(GNOME_PANEL, [ libpanelapplet-2.0 >= $PANEL_REQUIRED, libnotify >= $NOTIFY_REQUIRED, - libgnome-menu >= $GMENU_REQUIRED + libgnome-menu >= $GMENU_REQUIRED, + libgnomeui-2.0 ], [ with_gnome_panel=true; --- configure.ac.orig 2009-02-17 19:10:03.997555188 +0100 +++ configure.ac 2009-02-17 19:11:23.179429466 +0100 @@ -141,8 +141,8 @@ AS_IF([test "x$with_xfce4_panel" != xno] with_xfce4_panel=true; AC_SUBST(XFCE4_PANEL_CFLAGS) AC_SUBST(XFCE4_PANEL_LIBS) - XFCE4_PANEL_PLUGIN_DIR="$($PKG_CONFIG --variable=externalplugindir libxfce4panel-1.0)" - XFCE4_PANEL_DESKTOP_DIR="$($PKG_CONFIG --variable=desktopdatadir libxfce4panel-1.0)" + XFCE4_PANEL_PLUGIN_DIR=/usr/libexec/xfce4/panel-plugins + XFCE4_PANEL_DESKTOP_DIR=/usr/share/xfce4/panel-plugins AC_SUBST(XFCE4_PANEL_PLUGIN_DIR) AC_SUBST(XFCE4_PANEL_DESKTOP_DIR) ], -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483403] Review Request: A collection of quotes in French for gdesklets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483403 --- Comment #13 from Pierre-YvesChibon 2009-02-18 07:05:47 EDT --- well that he actually did :) %changelog * Fri Feb 6 2009 Jonathan MERCIER - 1.3-6 - change the name of rpm citation to gdesklet-citation -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485893] Package Review: perl-NOCpulse-Object - NOCpulse Object abstraction for Perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485893 --- Comment #3 from Miroslav Suchy 2009-02-18 07:09:52 EDT --- >Nice to have: ping upstream to include the license in the module themselves. I pinged myself and put it there. :) Updated: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/perl-NOCpulse-Object/perl-NOCpulse-Object.spec http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/perl-NOCpulse-Object/perl-NOCpulse-Object-1.26.10-1.src.rpm >And maybe change it to GPLv2+... Not possible. Sorry. >Is it realy normal to overlap the provides and the requires? Yes it is normal. Look on some other modules which has more then 2 modules and which require each other (e.g. perl-HTML-Parser). Nevertheless I did not put the requires and provides there. It is automatically generated by rpm. So if it is wrong (which I believe is not), then it is bug of rpmbuild. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483498] Review Request: earth-and-moon desktop background theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483498 --- Comment #6 from MERCIER 2009-02-18 07:20:56 EDT --- ok i wait your suggest. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485893] Package Review: perl-NOCpulse-Object - NOCpulse Object abstraction for Perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485893 --- Comment #4 from manuel wolfshant 2009-02-18 07:18:18 EDT --- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#Filtering_Requires:_and_Provides -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485607] Review Request: SciTools - A Python library for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485607 José Matos changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 | --- Comment #27 from José Matos 2009-02-18 07:26:10 EDT --- OK, removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR (I am sponsoring). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458952] Review Request: SEMS - an extensible SIP media server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458952
--- Comment #11 from Jan ONDREJ 2009-02-18 07:33:57 EDT
---
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/semsis added 2 times
Why there is no /usr/lib/sems/ivr/conf_auth.py, only an compiled pyc file?
Is it possible to build this package for ser too? (not only for openser).
At least an conditional flag can be useful for other people.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485617] Review Request: pygrace - Python bindings for grace
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485617 --- Comment #7 from José Matos 2009-02-18 07:53:16 EDT --- First, You have done a nice job. :-) One tiny question, why did you exclude examples from the %doc section? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485893] Package Review: perl-NOCpulse-Object - NOCpulse Object abstraction for Perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485893 --- Comment #5 from Miroslav Suchy 2009-02-18 07:59:36 EDT --- Sorry I do not think it is bug. $ rpm -qR rpm ... config(rpm) = 4.4.2.3-9.el5 ... $ rpm -q --provides rpm config(rpm) = 4.4.2.3-9.el5 rpm = 4.4.2.3-9.el5 $ rpm -qR yum ... config(yum) = 3.2.19-18.el5 ... $ rpm -q --provides yum config(yum) = 3.2.19-18.el5 ... And dozens and dozens other packages. Overlapping is not a bug. If you do not agree, ask others on fedora-devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478504] Review Request: gget - Download Manager for the GNOME desktop.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478504 --- Comment #27 from Christoph Wickert 2009-02-18 08:29:45 EDT --- Trying to build a package from the spec in pastebin fails due to some weird formating error I can't find. Can you please build the -7 release now? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467413] Review Request: mingw32-fontconfig - MinGW Windows Fontconfig 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=467413 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||pbrobin...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pbrobin...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Peter Robinson 2009-02-18 08:36:54 EDT --- The SRPM URL is invalid, I presume that's because -8 has replaced it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485607] Review Request: scitools - A Python library for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485607
José Matos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: SciTools - |Review Request: scitools -
|A Python library for|A Python library for
|scientific computing|scientific computing
--- Comment #28 from José Matos 2009-02-18 08:37:09 EDT ---
I have adjusted the Summary for the new name.
One small suggestion, replace
Source0:http://scitools.googlecode.com/files/SciTools-0.4.tar.gz
with
Source0:http://scitools.googlecode.com/files/SciTools-%{version}.tar.gz
That avoid to edit that line every time there is a new release. This is a
personal preference so you are free to ignore it.
Some small nitpicks:
* The spec file uses both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, the guidelines warn
against using both. Since there is only one instance of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT I
suggest to move that to %{buildroot}.
* In the website and in %description the capitalization of gnuplot is wrong.
Clearly this is really (really) a minor point.
I am not sure about the need of an extras sub-package. I would expect that most
of the users of this package will have the full set installed. In any case I
suggest to move all the dependencies to the main package and only do something
about it if there are complains later that this is a problem.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485607] Review Request: scitools - A Python library for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485607 --- Comment #29 from José Matos 2009-02-18 08:41:56 EDT --- I agree that the examples should stay in %doc (I asked about the same thing in pygrace so... ;-) ). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467413] Review Request: mingw32-fontconfig - MinGW Windows Fontconfig 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=467413
Peter Robinson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Peter Robinson 2009-02-18 09:02:55
EDT ---
Mostly OK except that it fails to build due to lack of mingw32-expat and I
don't see a mingw32-expat package review. Maybe its been missed.
One other small one is that the patch line should prob use the named option. EG
%patch0 -p1 -b .remove-logfile or similar.
+ rpmlint output
$ rpmlint -i mingw32-fontconfig-2.6.0-8.fc11.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license
+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
ab54ec1d4ddd836313fdbc0cd5299d6d fontconfig-2.6.0.tar.gz
- package successfully builds on at least one architecture
tested using koji scratch build
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1135503
Failing due to lack of mingw32-expat
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun+ does not use Prefix: /usr
n/a package owns all directories it creates
n/a no duplicate files in %files
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
+ packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8
Optional:
n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
- reviewer should build the package in mock/koji
n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
n/a review should test the package functions as described
+ scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474992] Review Request: libirman - Library for IRMAN hardware
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474992 --- Comment #7 from Jarod Wilson 2009-02-18 09:03:52 EDT --- Apologies, meant to look at this earlier... Yeah, once libirman is being built into Fedora, it should definitely be as straight-forward as BR: libirman-devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481056] Review Request: squeak-vm - a Smalltalk interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481056 Gavin Romig-Koch changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 | --- Comment #7 from Gavin Romig-Koch 2009-02-18 09:50:30 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > I added FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocker tag, as Gavin said he need a sponsor. Woops! I misunderstood the instructions in PackageMaintainers/Join. While this is the first package I've submitted to Fedora for review, I am already a member of the 'packagers' group because I'm an upstream maintainer for some packages, so I don't need to be sponsored 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 485617] Review Request: pygrace - Python bindings for grace
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485617 --- Comment #8 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-02-18 09:54:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > First, You have done a nice job. :-) > > One tiny question, why did you exclude examples from the %doc section? Missed it. :) Spec: http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/pygrace.spec SRPM: http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/pygrace-0.3-3.fc10.src.rpm rpmlint output: pygrace.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pygrace/grace_np.py 0644 pygrace.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pygrace/__init__.py 0644 pygrace.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pygrace/pygrace.py 0644 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485607] Review Request: scitools - A Python library for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485607 --- Comment #30 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-02-18 09:58:07 EDT --- (In reply to comment #28) > I am not sure about the need of an extras sub-package. I would expect that > most > of the users of this package will have the full set installed. In any case I > suggest to move all the dependencies to the main package and only do something > about it if there are complains later that this is a problem. I don't agree; the package should not be bloated. You don't need all of the packages to use SciTools. Also one must remember that there are still people using dialup connections, for whom downloading lots and lots of extra stuff is a problem. However, you might want to add a note about the extras metapackage to the %description, e.g. "For full functionality you may want to install the scitools-extras package." -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484598] Review Request: grin - Grep-like tool for source code
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484598 Marcela Maslanova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmasl...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Marcela Maslanova 2009-02-18 10:00:21 EDT --- OK source files match upstream 9dca5a5876938adfd9dfc20869818660 OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK build root is correct. OK license field matches the actual license. OK BSD license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). OK debuginfo package isn't need. FAIL rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK no scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. I run also test, which failed probably because I don't have nose installed? grin.noarch: W: no-documentation grin.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/grin.py 0644 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485893] Package Review: perl-NOCpulse-Object - NOCpulse Object abstraction for Perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485893 manuel wolfshant changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from manuel wolfshant 2009-02-18 10:03:59 EDT --- On the fedora-devel ML Ralf did not cry out loud, so 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 485607] Review Request: scitools - A Python library for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485607 --- Comment #31 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-02-18 10:03:21 EDT --- A few notes more: When you copy the package README, use 'cp -a' instead of 'cp' to preserve the time stamp. (Also, you might want to add a comment about removing the bindir after installation.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485607] Review Request: scitools - A Python library for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485607 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #32 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-02-18 10:08:51 EDT --- The package adheres to the Fedora Packaging and Review Guidelines, and is thus ACCEPTED. (You can do the tidying bits mentioned above once you import to CVS.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481022] Review Request: SPE - Stani's Python Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481022 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #20 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-02-18 10:19:03 EDT --- Now closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485893] Package Review: perl-NOCpulse-Object - NOCpulse Object abstraction for Perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485893 Miroslav Suchy changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Miroslav Suchy 2009-02-18 10:41:03 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-NOCpulse-Object Short Description: NOCpulse Object abstraction for Perl Owners: msuchy Branches: F-10, EL-4, EL-5 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 482757] Review Request: objcryst-fox - Viewing and solving crystal structures from powder diffraction data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482757
Pierre-YvesChibon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pin...@pingoured.fr
--- Comment #5 from Pierre-YvesChibon 2009-02-18
11:13:43 EDT ---
I cannot do the review since I'm not a sponsor but I looked at the spec file
Several minor points:
* You can use the macro %{name} instead of Fox in a number of places in the
spec
ie:
> Source0:
> http://dfn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/objcryst/Fox-1.8.0.3-R1088.tar.bz2
becomes
> Source0:
> http://dfn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/objcryst/%{name}-%{version}-R1088.tar.bz2
that can save you some problem for later update
* Please add an extra \n between two change in the changelog (some tool used
within Fedora need these white line between the change):
ie:
> * Sat Feb 14 2009 Pascal < pascal...@parois.net > - 1.8.0.3-1
> - Fixed reading, writing files and display of labels in the linux unicode
> version of Fox
> * Fri Feb 06 2009 Pascal < pascal...@parois.net > - 1.8.0-2
becomes
> * Sat Feb 14 2009 Pascal < pascal...@parois.net > - 1.8.0.3-1
> - Fixed reading, writing files and display of labels in the linux unicode
> version of Fox
It might be nice also to give to the reviewer an input file and an output file
so that the software could actually be tested :)
You might also be interested to join the SciTech SIG:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:SciTech_SIG
> * Fri Feb 06 2009 Pascal < pascal...@parois.net > - 1.8.0-2
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485607] Review Request: scitools - A Python library for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485607 --- Comment #33 from José Matos 2009-02-18 11:31:24 EDT --- (In reply to comment #30) > > I don't agree; the package should not be bloated. You don't need all of the > packages to use SciTools. Also one must remember that there are still people > using dialup connections, for whom downloading lots and lots of extra stuff is > a problem. It is not so much the fact that I may agree or not with that stance but instead the question to know if the use of a sub-package is the right technical solution to this problem. > However, you might want to add a note about the extras metapackage to the > %description, e.g. "For full functionality you may want to install the > scitools-extras package." I agree. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485617] Review Request: pygrace - Python bindings for grace
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485617 José Matos changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from José Matos 2009-02-18 11:28:21 EDT --- OK, 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 483116] Review Request: grnotify - Google Reader Notifier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483116 --- Comment #9 from Joseph Smidt 2009-02-18 11:38:05 EDT --- Has the author responded? Do you have a new Spec/Srpm that I could 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 485941] Review Request: eclipse-valgrind - Eclipse Valgrind Integration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485941
Andrew Overholt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|overh...@redhat.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Overholt 2009-02-18 12:06:30
EDT ---
Thanks for the submission. Here's the review. Lines beginning with X need
attention; those beginning with * are okay:
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
X make sure lines are <= 80 characters
- please add some line continuations to fix this on line 37
* package successfully compiles and builds
* BuildRequires are proper
* macros fine
* package is named appropriately
* it is legal for Fedora to distribute this
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* specfile name matches %{name}
* md5sum matches upstream
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
X summary and description good
- please add Eclipse somewhere in the Summary. Something like "Eclipse
plugin for Valgrind". The description could be a bit more verbose, too.
* correct buildroot
* %{?dist} used correctly
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
* rpmlint on .srpm gives no output
* changelog format okay
* Summary tag does not end in a period
* no PreReq
* specfile is legible
* specfile written in American English
* no -doc sub-package necessary
* not native, so no rpath, static linking, etc.
* no config files
* not a GUI app
* no -devel necessary
* install section begins with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}
* no translations so no locale handling
* no Requires(pre,post)
* package not relocatable
* package contains code
* package owns all directories and files
* no %files duplicates
* file permissions fine
* %clean present
* %doc files do not affect runtime
* not a web app
* package includes license text in the package and marks it with %doc
X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs => no output
eclipse-valgrind.x86_64: E: no-binary
eclipse-valgrind.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
I know I told you to put this into /usr/lib{,64}, but let's put the JARs into
/usr/share/eclipse and then just make sure that the package is not noarch. Is
there an ExcludeArch on ppc64 because there's no valgrind on ppc64?
* I verified that it installs and that the valgrind feature is available.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #30 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-02-18 12:09:29 EDT --- For 0.6.5-0.2: * Directory/file ownership issue - Now -core and -apps subpackages own some same files. I guess your intention is to move these files from -apps to -core (currently -apps Requires -core, so this is okay) - Related to this, scriptlets for -apps subpackage should no longer be needed. I think you will fix this when you import this package into Fedora CVS. ! I glanced at your another review request (bug 485636 for cutecom) and seems good from a quick look. Unfortunately it may be that I don't have time to review your another review request soon, however I will pay attention to it. --- This package (mrpt) is now APPROVED by mtasaka --- Please follow the procedure written on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join from "Install the Client Tools (Koji)". Now I am sponsoring you. If you want to import this package into Fedora 9/10, you also have to look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT (after once you rebuilt this package on koji Fedora rebuilding system). If you have questions, please ask me. Removing NEEDSPONSOR. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 463767] Review Request: cloog - The Chunky Loop Generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463767 --- Comment #33 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-02-18 12:12:03 EDT --- By the way, can this package be rebuilt on F-10? F-10 ppl is still 0.9-25.fc10. If you won't build this package on F-10, please close this bug as 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 485496] Review request of geglmm - the C++ Binding to the GEGL 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=485496 --- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-02-18 12:13:52 EDT --- Please rebuild this package also on F-10 branch, and for F-10 submit a request to push the rebuilt package into repository on bodhi: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ When it is done, please close this bug as 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 485617] Review Request: pygrace - Python bindings for grace
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485617 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-02-18 12:27:11 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: pygrace Short Description: Python bindings for grace Owners: jussilehtola Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-4 EL-5 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483838] Review Request: vmware-view-open-client - Client for Windows desktops managed by VMware View
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483838 Jochen Schmitt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||joc...@herr-schmitt.de --- Comment #2 from Jochen Schmitt 2009-02-18 12:31:51 EDT --- An additional issue is the fact, that this package is only useable on the i386 architecture. I have try to build it on x86_64. Becaused this build fails, I have start a thread on the upstream mailing list. the answer was, that the application is only useable on the i386 architecture. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478504] Review Request: gget - Download Manager for the GNOME desktop.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478504 --- Comment #28 from Ant Bryan 2009-02-18 12:31:14 EDT --- (In reply to comment #27) > Trying to build a package from the spec in pastebin fails due to some weird > formating error I can't find. Can you please build the -7 release now? My pleasure! :) Spec URL: http://pastebin.ca/1341199 SRPM URL: http://www.metalinker.org/mirrors/gget/gget-0.0.4-7.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 483838] Review Request: vmware-view-open-client - Client for Windows desktops managed by VMware View
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483838 --- Comment #3 from Jochen Schmitt 2009-02-18 12:34:36 EDT --- sorry, that I'm starting another comment here. Does we need the vmware kernel modules? If yes, we need to reopen this review on rpmfusion because Fedora doesn't accecpt kernel modules as packages and packages which depends on packages provid from outsite of fedora are not valid for Fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480538] Review Request: iptux -- a tool for sharing and transporting files and directories in Lan
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480538
--- Comment #26 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-02-18
12:32:40 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> http://liangsuilong.fedorapeople.org/iptux/iptux-0.4.5-0.2.rc1.fc11.src.rpm
>
> I have integrated the ppc patch into new SRPMS.
Well, ppc64 also needs %{name}-0.4.5-rc1-revert-using-ipv4_order.patch.
Actually assembly codes used in src/utils.h are ix86 specific and
I guess 0.4.5 rc1 fails to rebuild on any non-ix86 architecture.
I think applying the patch on all archs is preferable.
(In reply to comment #25)
> You said that srpm does not build on f10-updates-candidate due to bug in
> GConf2-devel. That means iptux source codes do not cause the failure. Is that
> right?
Actually someone else filed this issue as bug 485667.
For now adding "BuildRequires: dbus-devel" for F-10 (maybe also
on F-9) like
%if 0%{?fedora} < 11
# due to bug 485667
BuildRequires: dbus-devel
is preferable.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 463767] Review Request: cloog - The Chunky Loop Generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463767 Dodji Seketeli changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #34 from Dodji Seketeli 2009-02-18 12:42:53 EDT --- No, it can't. It depends on ppl 0.10 that is available on the coming F-11 only. The only envisionned consumer of cloog-ppl is gcc 4.4 for now anyway. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 466717] Review Request: python-cvxopt - A Python Package for Convex Optimization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466717 Bug 466717 depends on bug 475411, which changed state. Bug 475411 Summary: suitesparse is incorrectly linked and has undefined symbols https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475411 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483838] Review Request: vmware-view-open-client - Client for Windows desktops managed by VMware View
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483838 --- Comment #5 from Lubomir Rintel 2009-02-18 13:15:08 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > An additional issue is the fact, that this package is only useable on the i386 > architecture. I have try to build it on x86_64. Becaused this build fails, I > have start a thread on the upstream mailing list. the answer was, that the > application is only useable on the i386 architecture. I'm not aware of this and can't see anything that would be i386-specific here. Requirement of review is being able to build on at least one supported architecture, so it can be addressed after it is reviewed. Could you please attach the log file from the x86_64 build? (In reply to comment #3) > sorry, that I'm starting another comment here. Does we need the vmware kernel > modules? If yes, we need to reopen this review on rpmfusion because Fedora > doesn't accecpt kernel modules as packages and packages which depends on > packages provid from outsite of fedora are not valid for Fedora. No, we don't need any modules. This is basically just a remote desktop client. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483838] Review Request: vmware-view-open-client - Client for Windows desktops managed by VMware View
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483838
--- Comment #4 from Jochen Schmitt 2009-02-18
13:13:19 EDT ---
Good:
+ Base name of the SPEC file matches with package name
+ Package name fits naming guildlines
+ Could download sources from upstream via spectool -g
+ Packaged tar ball matches with upstream one
(md5sum: 8e289d1c6de0b89765420dad6ba0a202)
+ Consistently usage of rpm macros
+ Package contains a license tag with LGPLv2 as a valic OSS license
+ Package contains a verbatin copy of the license text
+ Package contains no subpackages
+ Defintion of the Buildroot is ok
+ Buildroot will been cleaned on the beginning of %clean and %install
+ Rpmlint is silent on source package
+ Package use parallel build
+ Mock build works fine for ix86 architecture
+ Rpmlint is silent on binary package
+ Rpmlint is silent on debuginfo package
+ Debuginfo package contains source files
+ Local install works fine
+ Local uninstall works fine
+ All packaged files are own by the package
+ %file stanza contains no duplicat entries
+ There are no files with the smae name as in other packages in the package
+ %changelog has proper format
Bad:
- Package should have 'ExclusiveArch: %{ix86}'
- Package should use desktop-file-install as described in the
packaging guildlines
- Start of the application caused the following error messages:
SSLLoadSharedLibrary: Failed to load library
libcrypto.so.0.9.8:/usr/lib/libcrypto.so.0.9.8: Kann die Shared-Object-Datei
nicht öffnen: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden
SSLLoadSharedLibrary: Failed to load library
libcrypto.so.0.9.8:/usr/lib/libcrypto.so.0.9.8: Kann die Shared-Object-Datei
nicht öffnen: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden
- Copyright note in the sources says, that LGPLv2+ is the valid license
specification
for the license tag
- %doc stanza is large. So it may be nice, if you can put
View_Client_Admin_Guide.pdf
and View_Client_Help.pdf in a separate subpackage
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485417] Review Request: bochs-bios - bios implementation from the bochs project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485417 --- Comment #10 from Glauber de Oliveira Costa 2009-02-18 13:14:26 EDT --- Peter, comments on this one? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483838] Review Request: vmware-view-open-client - Client for Windows desktops managed by VMware View
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483838 --- Comment #6 from Jochen Schmitt 2009-02-18 13:22:42 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=332430) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=332430) Build log of a failed build on a x86_64 system Here is the build log of my x86_64 system. As wrote in an earlier comment upstream say, that x86_64 is not supported. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 --- Comment #11 from Thomas Moschny 2009-02-18 13:42:09 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) > I am wrapping up some other projects early this week, and will get some of my > packages reviews such as this one updated. I am removing the NEEDSPONSOR tag, > as I have been sponsored for a while now. Thomas, are you wanting to > co-maintain or something? Not necessarily, but maybe. Well, I just think I'd occasionally use it, that's why I'd like to see it packaged, and I can help if 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 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 #11 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-02-18 14:08:49 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=332434) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=332434) Patch to use system tk headers -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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
Tom "spot" Callaway changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tcall...@redhat.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #10 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-02-18
14:07:59 EDT ---
Two issues here:
1. please use %{_datadir} instead of /usr/share.
2. These files shouldn't be in the package.
/usr/share/wordnet-3.0/include/tk
/usr/share/wordnet-3.0/include/tk/tk.h
/usr/share/wordnet-3.0/include/tk/tkDecls.h
In fact, upstream really shouldn't be shipping these files as part of wordnet,
they should rely on the system tk-devel (they're using the system libtk, but
providing mismatched tk headers?).
I'll attach a patch to remove it from the Fedora package. You'd need to apply
this patch and also delete the include/tk dir in %prep.
Show me a fixed package and I'll finish this review.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485617] Review Request: pygrace - Python bindings for grace
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485617 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #11 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-02-18 14:21:57 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485418] Review Request: vgabios - vga option rom for bochs/qemu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485418 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #16 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-02-18 14:18:00 EDT --- Can you take a look at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages I think you want 0.6-0.1.b or 0.6-0.1.beta as your verson? Or does upstream have different beta versions? I only see the b tag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477570] Review Request: couchdb - A document database server, accessible via a RESTful JSON API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477570 --- Comment #8 from Allisson Azevedo 2009-02-18 14:20:25 EDT --- > Yes, but I still think that it's more understandable for others. In any case,I > personally still don't understand why couchdb needs devel-package to work. CouchDB needs icu-config for /usr/bin/couchdb, see line 173. I'll fix the others issues. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485159] Review Request: anki - Flashcard program for using space repetition learning
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485159 --- Comment #2 from Christian Krause 2009-02-18 14:19:08 EDT --- Anyone wants to pick up this review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #12 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-02-18 14:24:02 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467385] Review Request: mingw32-nsiswrapper - Helper program for making NSIS Windows installers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467385 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-02-18 14:25:33 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483116] Review Request: grnotify - Google Reader Notifier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483116 --- Comment #10 from Guillaume Kulakowski 2009-02-18 14:23:14 EDT --- Hi, no response. But a new SPEC without path for install.py but a new setup.py that I proposed to the author Version 1.1.2-3 SPEC: http://llaumgui.fedorapeople.org/review/grnotify/grnotify.spec SRPMS: http://llaumgui.fedorapeople.org/review/grnotify/grnotify-1.1.2-3.fc10.noarch.rpm RPM: http://llaumgui.fedorapeople.org/review/grnotify/grnotify-1.1.2-3.fc10.src.rpm Commment: rpmlint is silent -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485893] Review Request: perl-NOCpulse-Object - NOCpulse Object abstraction for Perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485893 Chris Weyl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cw...@alumni.drew.edu Summary|Package Review: |Review Request: |perl-NOCpulse-Object - |perl-NOCpulse-Object - |NOCpulse Object abstraction |NOCpulse Object abstraction |for Perl|for Perl Alias||perl-NOCpulse-Object -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478744] Review Request: wmfire - WindowMaker dock app that displays cpu, memory or network load as flames
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478744
Tom "spot" Callaway changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||tcall...@redhat.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tcall...@redhat.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-02-18
14:29:30 EDT ---
A few points here:
1. Go through the spec and use macros consistently. Specifically, %{name},
%{version}.
2. Look at the license tag. Re-read:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#GPL_and_LGPL
(hint: look at the source code)
3. Look at the Requires that rpm finds automatically. If it finds
libgtop-2.0.so.7() as a Requires, you don't need to explicitly list it as a
Requires.
4. Instead of wildcarding so aggressively for a single binary and manpage, why
not be more specific?
I'll do a more complete review when I see a new SRPM/SPEC.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481494] Renaming review: unikurd-web-font ⇒ kurdit-unikurd-web-fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481494 --- Comment #9 from Nicolas Mailhot 2009-02-18 14:33:36 EDT --- This is a reminder for all the packagers that still have bugs open about adapting to font packaging guidelines there is only one month left before Fedora 11 beta: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/11/Schedule A week of this month will see the Fedora 11 mass rebuild, that will load the build farm: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Mass_Rebuild As already converted packages showed it is quite possible to make mistakes during the conversion. Please make releng and QA happy and don't wait till the last minute to do your changes (avoid pre-beta panic). If possible start before the mass rebuild so we don't burn cycles on incorrect packages. The PackageKit enhancements stated for Fedora 11 assume fonts and font-using packages are sane (basically respect packaging guidelines). It is quite possible that not-converted packages will interact with the F11 font autoinstall feature in "interesting" ways. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/AutomaticFontInstallation We don't want that There is extensive documentation on the wiki and most of your questions have likely already been answered there. Please do read the FAQ before making more work for the support team by asking questions answered there. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483331] Review Request: asterisk-sounds-core - Core sounds for Asterisk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483331 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-02-18 14:39:16 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480249] Review Request: unalz - Decompression utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480249 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-02-18 14:45:13 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480887] Review Request: kguitar - Guitar Tabulature Music Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480887 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #13 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-02-18 14:55:44 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485643] Review Request: django-authopenid - Django application to integrate Django authentication system with OpenID
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485643 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-02-18 14:52:26 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 438608] Review Request: elisa-plugins-good - Good Plugins for the Elisa Media Center
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438608 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #31 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-02-18 14:53:58 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483331] Review Request: asterisk-sounds-core - Core sounds for Asterisk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483331 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485607] Review Request: scitools - A Python library for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485607 --- Comment #34 from Joseph Smidt 2009-02-18 14:57:57 EDT --- Okay, here is the final version with all the changes: Spec URL: http://jsmidt.fedorapeople.org/scitools.spec SRPM URL: http://jsmidt.fedorapeople.org/scitools-0.4-3.fc10.src.rpm Will request 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 485607] Review Request: scitools - A Python library for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485607 --- Comment #35 from Joseph Smidt 2009-02-18 15:00:30 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: scitools Short Description: A Python library for scientific computing Owners: jsmidt Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-4 EL-5 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485693] Review Request: mythes-da - Danish 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=485693 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-02-18 15:01:39 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485607] Review Request: scitools - A Python library for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485607 Joseph Smidt 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 484808] Review Request: python-linux-procfs - parser classes for information found in /proc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484808 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #10 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-02-18 14:57:35 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485668] Review Request: irc-otr - Off-The-Record Messaging plugin for various irc clients
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485668 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-02-18 14:58:36 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485897] Review Request: perl-Variable-Magic - Associate user-defined magic to variables from Perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485897 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-02-18 15:02:29 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485967] Review Request: perl-MooseX-LazyLogDispatch - Logging Role for Moose
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485967 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-02-18 15:05:31 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485963] Review Request: perl-MooseX-GlobRef-Object - Store a Moose object in glob reference
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485963 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-02-18 15:03:25 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485607] Review Request: scitools - A Python library for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485607 --- Comment #36 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-02-18 15:09:56 EDT --- Joseph: You must create a bugzilla account with your email address that is in the Fedora account system and use that. You cannot use a @fedoraproject.org address as that is only a forward. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
