[Bug 488919] Review Request: perl-App-Cache - Easy application-level caching
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488919 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486961] Review Request: libservicelog - Servicelog Database and 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=486961 --- Comment #13 from Ondrej Vasik 2009-03-06 03:22:09 EDT --- Good point - I mentioned that off bugzilla too and AFAIK Roman changed this locally - so I guess he only forgot to update spec file on fedoraproject upload. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488919] Review Request: perl-App-Cache - Easy application-level caching
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488919 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) 2009-03-06 03:25:33 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i386). koji Build => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1225790 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url 3483ed94401531d16ceab63d57b8da6e App-Cache-0.35.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=3, Tests=41, 6 wallclock secs ( 0.00 usr 0.01 sys + 0.41 cusr 0.05 csys = 0.47 CPU) + package perl-App-Cache-0.35-1.fc11-noarch => Provides: perl(App::Cache) = 0.35 Requires: perl(File::Find::Rule) perl(File::HomeDir) perl(File::stat) perl(HTTP::Cookies) perl(LWP::UserAgent) perl(Path::Class) perl(Storable) perl(base) perl(strict) 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 488919] Review Request: perl-App-Cache - Easy application-level caching
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488919 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 488919] Review Request: perl-App-Cache - Easy application-level caching
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488919 --- Comment #2 from Chris Weyl 2009-03-06 03:31:40 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-App-Cache Short Description: Easy application-level caching 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 488752] Review Request: mythes-sv - Swedish 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=488752 Caolan McNamara changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485596] Review Request: phoronix-test-suite - A Comprehensive Linux Benchmarking 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=485596 Hans Ulrich Niedermann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rhb...@n-dimensional.de --- Comment #6 from Hans Ulrich Niedermann 2009-03-06 04:08:39 EDT --- I did not find the time to polish it for an actual review, but perhaps you can steal something useful from there: http://ndim.fedorapeople.org/packages/phoronix-test-suite/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487527] Review Request: watchdog - Software and/or Hardware watchdog daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487527 --- Comment #5 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-06 04:09:00 EDT --- Can you point me to where this was discussed? The only link I can find to discussion is this thread [sorry about the horrible URL]: http://markmail.org/search/fedora+packaging+%22Executable+documentation%22#query:fedora%20packaging%20%22Executable%20documentation%22+page:1+mid:yrrunqykcbvhx775+state:results There's an oblique and unconvincing reference to this being a "mistake" here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FrequentlyMadeMistakes Also, lots of existing documentation contains executable scripts: find /usr/share/doc/ -perm /111 -a \! -type d -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474391] Review Request: libbase - JFree Base Services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474391 Caolan McNamara changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Caolan McNamara 2009-03-06 04:25:45 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: libbase Short Description: JFree Base Services Owners: caolanm Branches: devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472229] Review Request: PyQwt - Python bindings for Qwt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472229 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-06 04:40:09 EDT --- PyQwt-5.1.0-4.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/PyQwt-5.1.0-4.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467324] Review Request: mingw32-portablexdr - MinGW Windows PortableXDR XDR / RPC 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=467324 Daniel Berrange changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(tcall...@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #7 from Daniel Berrange 2009-03-06 04:42:31 EDT --- Since Sun announced SUNRPC was being relicensed to standard 3-clause BSD, can this ticket be unblocked from Fedora Legal now ? http://lwn.net/Articles/319648/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467324] Review Request: mingw32-portablexdr - MinGW Windows PortableXDR XDR / RPC 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=467324 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|182235(FE-Legal)| --- Comment #8 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-06 04:47:39 EDT --- Yes, it should be. However this package still needs upstream work, and is the major blocking point on the F11 / Windows cross-compiler feature. Next week ... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467324] Review Request: mingw32-portablexdr - MinGW Windows PortableXDR XDR / RPC 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=467324 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(tcall...@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #9 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-06 04:48:43 EDT --- Hmmm .. how do I get this out of NEEDINFO? Perhaps by posting a useless comment! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487527] Review Request: watchdog - Software and/or Hardware watchdog daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487527 --- Comment #6 from Marcela Maslanova 2009-03-06 04:51:33 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > Can you point me to where this was discussed? The only link I can find > to discussion is this thread [sorry about the horrible URL]: > > http://markmail.org/search/fedora+packaging+%22Executable+documentation%22#query:fedora%20packaging%20%22Executable%20documentation%22+page:1+mid:yrrunqykcbvhx775+state:results > > There's an oblique and unconvincing reference to this being a "mistake" here: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FrequentlyMadeMistakes I don't remember any particular discussion but bugzillas and time to time questions at fedora-devel. If you aren't sure you can ask again on fedora-devel. > > Also, lots of existing documentation contains executable scripts: > > find /usr/share/doc/ -perm /111 -a \! -type d And I believe this is wrong. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481727] Review Request: python-EnvisageCore - Extensible Application Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481727 --- Comment #3 from Rakesh Pandit 2009-03-06 04:52:58 EDT --- I don't see why it failed as the only dependency was setupdocs which is already done. So, I have asked upstream and waiting for response: https://mail.enthought.com/pipermail/enthought-dev/2009-March/020195.html Between yes I will be moving examples under %docs. Thanks, -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481727] Review Request: python-EnvisageCore - Extensible Application Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481727 Rakesh Pandit changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487527] Review Request: watchdog - Software and/or Hardware watchdog daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487527 --- Comment #7 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-06 05:06:29 EDT --- Raised on f-d-l: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg00355.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 246348] Review Request: parrot - Parrot Virtual Machine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=246348 Christoph Wickert changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@christoph-wickert.de Flag||needinfo?(st...@silug.org) --- Comment #14 from Christoph Wickert 2009-03-06 05:13:10 EDT --- Steven, if you are busy I suggest take Gerd's package from bug # 486302. You can still co-maintain it later. Please reply in this bug within the next two weeks or I will close this bug in favor of Gerd's 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 486758] Review Request: yofrankie-bge - 3D Game with characters from Big Buck Bunny movie
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486758 --- Comment #12 from Lubomir Rintel 2009-03-06 05:38:46 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) > It is crashing for me after going "Start game" in menu. > Original binary distribution is working fine though. That's most likely a blender bug. Please install blender-debuginfo and file a bug against blender with a traceback. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488285] Review Request: txt2man - Convert flat ASCII text to man page format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488285 Sindre Pedersen Bjørdal changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481759] Review Request: python-Apptools - Enthough Tool Suite Application Tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481759 --- Comment #6 from Rakesh Pandit 2009-03-06 05:48:49 EDT --- Will fix it now. Sorry for delay was out on holidays. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475098] Review Request: python-Traits - Explicitly typed attributes for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475098 Rakesh Pandit changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||481727 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481759] Review Request: python-Apptools - Enthough Tool Suite Application Tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481759 Rakesh Pandit changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||481727 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481727] Review Request: python-EnvisageCore - Extensible Application Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481727 Rakesh Pandit changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||481759, 475098 --- Comment #4 from Rakesh Pandit 2009-03-06 05:52:07 EDT --- Just confirmed that home page prerequisites were wrong and python-Apptools, python-Traits are dependencies. Will address them ASAP. Updated dependencies. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467419] Review Request: mingw32-pango - MinGW Windows Pango 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=467419 Erik van Pienbroek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl --- Comment #8 from Erik van Pienbroek 2009-03-06 06:56:48 EDT --- How did you build this package and what is the package version of mingw32-cairo you have installed? I just tried to compile it locally (rpmbuild) and the compilation of pango succeeded without any errors. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473744] Review Request: flint - Fast Library for Number Theory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473744 --- Comment #8 from Alex Lancaster 2009-03-06 07:17:57 EDT --- Ping? Would be nice to get some more SAGE deps rolling... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467324] Review Request: mingw32-portablexdr - MinGW Windows PortableXDR XDR / RPC 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=467324 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182235(FE-Legal) --- Comment #10 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-03-06 08:09:07 EDT --- No... because we have to get explicit permission from Sun to do it. Contrary to what you might think would be the logical approach, Sun is only changing the license for code that has cleared their legal dept. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467642] Review Request: sugar-read - PDF reader for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467642 Simon Schampijer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #21 from Simon Schampijer 2009-03-06 08:11:06 EDT --- @Kevin - yup I only wanted to have a devel branch, thanks for the quick handling The rpm built fine - so i am going to close this ticket. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480724] Review Request: djbdns - A Domain Name System by D. J. Bernstein
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #21 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-03-06 08:42:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #18) > Say there exists a source code file within pjp's djbdns-1.05.1.tar.gz that is > identical to version in DJB's djbdns-1.05.tar.gz available at > http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.tar.gz. Are you saying that if that file > is > obtained from pjp's djbdns-1.05.1.tar.gz, the terms of the GPL apply if that > file, and only that file, are incorporated in a further derived work? This is generally how the GPL works. If you take file A, which is under Public Domain (all rights granted to everyone) and file B, which is under some version of the GPL, and you compile them together to generate binary C, binary C is under the terms of the GPL, because the GPL is by far the more restrictive license, and the terms of file A are all being met by it. The same is true if file A is under a permissive license, such as MIT or BSD, because the GPL's coverage meets those terms. This is precisely why the FSF (and Fedora) tracks GPL compatiblity on other licenses. With some license pairings, this can get even trickier, because it may be possible for file A and file B to have licenses which have differing grants and restrictions, which, while neither prevents the other from being honored, results in the need to honor the terms of both A and B simultaneously (technically, we're always doing this, but when one covers both, we simplify it to one). In those cases, we note it in the spec file with a: License: Foo and Bar style notation. We also use that notation in cases like this: File A is MIT. It is compiled by itself into a standalone binary. File B, C, D, E, and F are all GPL. They get compiled together into a standalone binary. Both binaries end up in the same package. In this case, the spec License tag would be "MIT and GPL". > > As to removing DJB's copyright notice, DJB did that. It would be nice to > > reference his message in which he took that action. > > DJB did not make this tarball available: No, but I'm pretty sure the latest release for all of his code drops took out the copyright statement. He has also issued blanket DJB clearly understands US Public Domain law, as can be seen here: http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html He writes: "The normal way to abandon a copyright is to make a clear written dedication of the work to the public domain." He then does exactly this, here: http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html "What are the distribution terms for djbdns? 2007.12.28: I hereby place the djbdns package (in particular, djbdns-1.05.tar.gz, with MD5 checksum 3147c5cd56832aa3b41955c7a51cbeb2) into the public domain. The package is no longer copyrighted." Thus, there is no need to retain his copyright statement, as it clearly no longer applies. To re-add it would be incorrect and misleading. > Otherwise, I think somebody could get the idea that DJB released djbdns under > the GPL, which is not the case. Given that he has abandoned copyright entirely, he no longer has any say in what anyone does with it. > Also, if the License is intended to be GPLv2+, > should COPYING really include v3? No, but upstream should correct that mistake. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480724] Review Request: djbdns - A Domain Name System by D. J. Bernstein
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #22 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-03-06 08:44:24 EDT --- That sentence that trails off should be "blanket statements to this effect." -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467324] Review Request: mingw32-portablexdr - MinGW Windows PortableXDR XDR / RPC 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=467324 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(tcall...@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #11 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-06 08:50:42 EDT --- But the code in PortableXDR is just derived from what was in glibc, so that's OK, right? Or do we get permission for every project that uses the code? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467324] Review Request: mingw32-portablexdr - MinGW Windows PortableXDR XDR / RPC 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=467324 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(tcall...@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #12 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-03-06 08:56:38 EDT --- We have to get permission for every single project that copied code. Yes, this is stupid. I sent Simon another email this morning to try to speed things along, but this is Sun's legal machine grinding slowly, not Simon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467324] Review Request: mingw32-portablexdr - MinGW Windows PortableXDR XDR / RPC 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=467324 --- Comment #13 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-06 09:03:30 EDT --- That sucks, but thanks for following this up. This doesn't sound very much like "four-freedoms" software. The original intent of PortableXDR was actually to replace that code completely. I already wrote a replacement rpcgen, and about 20% of the XDR code is rewritten too. I stopped because Sun were going to freely license the code. Is it worth continuing? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488185] Review Request: php-pecl-selinux - SELinux binding for PHP scripts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488185 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-03-06 09:09:46 EDT --- Okay: This package (php-pecl-selinux) is APPROVED by mtasaka Please follow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors from Step 7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467324] Review Request: mingw32-portablexdr - MinGW Windows PortableXDR XDR / RPC 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=467324 --- Comment #14 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-03-06 09:11:46 EDT --- Simon swears up and down that we'll get the all-clear soon, but he can't tell me when "soon" is going to be. We're talking daily at this point. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487665] Review Request: soud - Tools for hardware related services based on udev events
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487665 --- Comment #13 from Phil Knirsch 2009-03-06 09:40:28 EDT --- Thats why i really like the idea of harald to add a 3rd state for "ondemand" or something similar, but that needs to be discussed on fedora-devel imo. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488359] Review Request: dcbd - daemon and configuration tool for data center bridging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488359 Andy Gospodarek changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(d...@danny.cz) --- Comment #3 from Andy Gospodarek 2009-03-06 09:45:50 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > - upstream download page says that 0.9.4 is the latest version > (https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=42302) => check with > upstream I got this direct from Intel. I can harass them to update the stuff on their sourceforge page, but this is the latest. > - wants to build with the included libconfig => BuildRequires: libconfig-devel > is missing, but then it fails to build on Rawhide due some undefined symbols > during linking Can you paste of attach the build failure message? I was able to build and install it just find on an f11 alpha system. > - are the headers alone in -devel subpackage (no library there) useful for any > development? They are useful for anyone who might want to write an app that builds on the infrastructure in place and used by dcbtool/dcbd. I think it could probably be dropped though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483498] Review Request: earth-and-moon-backgrounds - Modern background
Please do not reply directly 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 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-03-06 09:47:45 EDT --- Okay. - This package (earth-and-moon-backgrounds) is APPROVED by mtasaka - -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486229] Review Request: indi-apogee - The INDI driver for Apogee Alta (U & E) line of CCDs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486229 Sergio Pascual changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #9 from Sergio Pascual 2009-03-06 09:55:29 EDT --- indi-apoge is built in Fedora 10 and 9. I have created the updates: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/indi-apogee-1.0-1.fc9,libapogee-2.2-2.fc9,libindi-0.6-4.fc9 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/indi-apogee-1.0-1.fc10,libapogee-2.2-2.fc10,libindi-0.6-4.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483853] Review Request: tcl-trf - Tcl extension providing "transformer" commands
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483853 Marcela Maslanova changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmasl...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454010] Review Request: iaxclient - Library for creating telephony solutions that interoperate with 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=454010 Deji Akingunola changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dakin...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dakin...@gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454018] Review Request: tcl-tkpng - Tcl/Tk support for PNG
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454018 Deji Akingunola changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dakin...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dakin...@gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467490] Review Request: nwsserver - NetWorkSpaces Server for clustering of scripting languages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467490 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rjo...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rjo...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488962] New: Review Request: app-install - Tools for managing application install data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: app-install - Tools for managing application install data https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488962 Summary: Review Request: app-install - Tools for managing application install data Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rich...@hughsie.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/temp/app-install.spec SRPM URL: http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/temp/app-install-001-1.src.rpm Description: These tools are used when software sources register and unregister database entries. Upstream source: http://www.packagekit.org/releases/app-install-001.tar.gz output from rpmlint: app-install.i586: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/sbin/app-install-generate-yum.pyo 0644 app-install.i586: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/sbin/app-install-generate-yum.pyc 0644 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1226766 This will be needed for PackageKit in future releases. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487052] Review Request: dc3dd - Patched version of GNU dd for use in computer forensics
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487052 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-06 10:21:42 EDT --- dc3dd-6.12.2-3.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dc3dd-6.12.2-3.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487052] Review Request: dc3dd - Patched version of GNU dd for use in computer forensics
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487052 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-06 10:21:37 EDT --- dc3dd-6.12.2-3.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dc3dd-6.12.2-3.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488963] New: Review Request: transifex - A system for distributed translation submissions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: transifex - A system for distributed translation submissions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488963 Summary: Review Request: transifex - A system for distributed translation submissions Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ivazquez...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://ivazquez.fedorapeople.org/packages/transifex/transifex.spec SRPM URL: http://ivazquez.fedorapeople.org/packages/transifex/transifex-0.5-0.0.hg43f8e9924fa2.src.rpm Description: Transifex is a web-system that facilitates the process of submitting translations in remote and disparate version control systems (VCS). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488107] Review Request: django-pagination - Django pagination tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488107 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||488963 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488108] Review Request: django-tagging - A generic tagging application for Django projects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488108 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||488963 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488099] Review Request: python-polib - A library to parse and manage gettext catalogs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488099 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||488963 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488963] Review Request: transifex - A system for distributed translation submissions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488963 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||488151 Depends on||488099, 488101, 488103, ||488106, 488107, 488108 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488103] Review Request: django-evolution - Schema evolution for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488103 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||488963 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488101] Review Request: django-contact-form - An extensible contact-form application for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488101 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||488963 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488106] Review Request: django-notification - User notification management for the Django web framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488106 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||488963 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467490] Review Request: nwsserver - NetWorkSpaces Server for clustering of scripting languages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467490 --- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-06 10:25:13 EDT --- rpmlint is silent. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1226938 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483853] Review Request: tcl-trf - Tcl extension providing "transformer" commands
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483853
Marcela Maslanova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Marcela Maslanova 2009-03-06
10:25:41 EDT ---
OK Rpmlint must be run on every package.
OK The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
OK The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
OK The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
? The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file.
OK The spec file must be written in American English.
OK The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
113c9766640239b17ee2dad4d3af4757
OK The package MUST successfully compile.
OK Correct BuildRequires.
OK Proper use of %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.
OK Shared library files (not just symlinks) must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun.
OK Relocatable package must state this fact in the request for review.
OK A package must own all directories that it creates.
OK A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
OK Permissions on files must be set properly.
OK Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK Each package must consistently use macros.
OK The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
OK If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
OK Header files must be in a -devel package.
OK Static libraries must be in a -static package.
OK Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'.
OK Library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1) and files that end in .so
(without suffix) must go in -devel.
OK In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package.
OK Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
OK Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file.
OK At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
Licenses: Hybrid BSD (half BSD, half zlib) in bzlib.h, sha.h is openssl
license? generic/haval hasn't license at all...
Could you check it once more and set the appropriate one? I didn't find any
license file, what upstream says about license?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454008] Review Request: iax - Implementation of Inter-Asterisk eXchange protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454008 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||oget.fed...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|oget.fed...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483376] Review Request: fluid-soundfont - Pro-quality GM/GS soundfont
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483376 Kevin Kofler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org --- Comment #6 from Kevin Kofler 2009-03-06 10:33:54 EDT --- > Given that all those which need gus patches explictly require > PersonalCopy-Lite's gus patches, and that those do a decent job (sf2 to gus > format conversion is not perfect, as the feature sets of the 2 formats are not > a 100% match), I see no use in having a gus version of the fluid font, esp. > given the huge package size this will cause. Well, the use would be to make them use a truly Free soundfont by default instead of a just freely distributable 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 467490] Review Request: nwsserver - NetWorkSpaces Server for clustering of scripting languages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467490 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467490] Review Request: nwsserver - NetWorkSpaces Server for clustering of scripting languages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467490 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-06 10:35:09 EDT --- -- This package is APPROVED by rjones -- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467490] Review Request: nwsserver - NetWorkSpaces Server for clustering of scripting languages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467490
--- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-06 10:34:30
EDT ---
+ rpmlint output
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
Although implemented in python, this is just a general program,
and the name of the program is acceptable to Fedora.
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
Also checked Python guidelines, and OK.
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license
+ %doc includes license file
There isn't a license file, but %doc includes the nearest thing,
and all source files are marked with the license anyway.
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
d321ae5fd3a363167ac27f7959b56c8a / 22331 bytes
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ 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
+ package owns all directories it creates
+ 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
n/a 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:
? 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
+ the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
- review should test the package functions as described
n/a 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 488962] Review Request: app-install - Tools for managing application install 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=488962 --- Comment #1 from Richard Hughes 2009-03-06 10:43:30 EDT --- See http://blogs.gnome.org/hughsie/2009/03/05/application-installing/ and http://blogs.gnome.org/hughsie/2009/03/06/application-installing-ii/ for background reading. I've submitted the fedora data as a separate package review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488968 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488968] New: Review Request: fedora-app-install - Fedora application data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: fedora-app-install - Fedora application data https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488968 Summary: Review Request: fedora-app-install - Fedora application data Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rich...@hughsie.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/temp/fedora-app-install.spec SRPM URL: http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/temp/fedora-app-install-20090306-1.src.rpm Description: Fedora application data such as icons and translations for applications not yet installed. This package is designed to be updated every few months as new applications are added and translations are updated. This only includes data from the fedora rawhide repository, as other repositories will be packaged and merged using the app-install framework. This data will be used in application browsers such as gnome-app-install and gpk-app-install in future versions of gnome-packagekit. See http://blogs.gnome.org/hughsie/2009/03/05/application-installing/ and http://blogs.gnome.org/hughsie/2009/03/06/application-installing-ii/ for background. rpmlint fedora-app-install-20090306-1.src.rpm fedora-app-install-20090306-1.noarch.rpm fedora-app-install.noarch: W: no-documentation I'm not quite sure what licence to use in this spec file, as the icons in the packages will be marked with different licences, and I'm not sure if you can mark an icon (the binary) or a translation as GPLv2+. Advice welcome. This review depends on the review for app-install, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488962 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486760] Review Request: mscore - Music Composition & Notation Software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486760 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-06 10:46:13 EDT --- Taking for review. Note dependency (bug 483376) still needs to be reviewed by someone else. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486760] Review Request: mscore - Music Composition & Notation Software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486760 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||rjo...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rjo...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488968] Review Request: fedora-app-install - Fedora application 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=488968 --- Comment #1 from Richard Hughes 2009-03-06 11:15:53 EDT --- For reference, I've got packages here for rpmfusion-free-app-install and rpmfusion-nonfree-app-install also, but I want to get the fedora one reviewed first. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480724] Review Request: djbdns - A Domain Name System by D. J. Bernstein
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #23 from Mark Johnson 2009-03-06 11:17:46 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19) > Anyway, Mark, I think it's okay to take a public domain soruce, change it and > release it as licensed version. If I'm not wrong, I guess openDNS is based on > `dnscache'. But still if you want me to put that link in the README, I'll do > that. I don't think that "those other guys did it so it must be okay" is much of a justification. In any event, I'm just giving you advice. I've got zip for authority here. Consider it, ignore it, your call. > PS: I'm kind of more looking forward to some technical review, folks. Unfortunately, I'm afraid to examine your code closely for fear of being accused of being a GPL violator later on down the road. I will say that over the years, the djbdns community has identified and fixed a few issues. Such as the ones that hit the front page of Slashdot the other day. You might wish to take a look at those. While you may have no legal obligation to credit the originators of any of those fixes, personally, I'd consider it very rude not to do so. There is more to djbdns that dnscache. Somebody who wishes to use dnscache might not be interested in tinydns/axfrdns and vice versa (not to mention pickdns and walldns). I think Debian does package it all up in one bundle, but I don't know if it's all turned on by default when the package is installed. In the past, some RPM distributors have made separate packages for each djbdns component. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483376] Review Request: fluid-soundfont - Pro-quality GM/GS soundfont
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483376 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #7 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-03-06 11:19:38 EDT --- Which one should I be reviewing, with gus or without? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 463080] Review Request: cl-base64 - A Common Lisp BASE64 implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463080 --- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-06 11:27:07 EDT --- Actually all of the links for all of the cl-* packages are invalid. I guess people.redhat.com doesn't really exist any longer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488347] Review Request: kdepim3 - Compatibility support for kdepim3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488347 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #5 from Rex Dieter 2009-03-06 11:29:56 EDT --- imported/built for 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 483376] Review Request: fluid-soundfont - Pro-quality GM/GS soundfont
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483376 --- Comment #8 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-03-06 11:32:15 EDT --- What do you think? Is 250MB too large for an RPM? (it is really not hard for users to create these gus patches themselves) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483376] Review Request: fluid-soundfont - Pro-quality GM/GS soundfont
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483376 --- Comment #9 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-03-06 11:39:57 EDT --- Unless you think there is a serious advantage to the larger package, I'd prefer the smaller 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 485641] Review Request: pdftk - The PDF Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485641 --- Comment #20 from Tom Davidson 2009-03-06 11:43:20 EDT --- Thanks Orcan, I was able to successfully build pdftk once I updated these packages. I didn't have to rebuild the F11 itext rpm from source; the one from ftp://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/development/i386/os/Packages/itext-2.1.4-5.fc11.src.rpm installed on my F10 install just fine. I think that Jochen may have accidentally incremented from fc10 to fc11 in his pdftk spec file. The versions above go: 1.41.9.fc10 1.41.10.fc10 1.41.10.fc11 <--incremented wrong '10'? 1.41.12.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486760] Review Request: mscore - Music Composition & Notation Software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486760 --- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-06 11:39:58 EDT --- auto-buildrequires output: BuildRequires: alsa-lib-devel = 1.0.19.3.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: baekmuk-ttf-batang-fonts = 2.2.20.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: baekmuk-ttf-dotum-fonts = 2.2.20.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: baekmuk-ttf-gulim-fonts = 2.2.20.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: baekmuk-ttf-hline-fonts = 2.2.20.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: binutils = 2.19.51.0.2.14.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: bzip2 = 1.0.5.4.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: ccache = 2.4.14.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: cjkuni-uming-fonts = 0.2.20080216.1.21.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: cmake = 2.6.3.1.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: coreutils = 7.1.6.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: cpio = 2.9.90.4.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: dejavu-sans-fonts = 2.28.6.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: dejavu-sans-mono-fonts = 2.28.6.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: dejavu-serif-fonts = 2.28.6.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils = 0.15.7.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: diffutils = 2.8.1.23.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: elfutils = 0.140.2.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: file = 5.00.4.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: findutils = 1:4.4.0.2.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: fluidsynth-devel = 1.0.8.3.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: fontconfig = 2.6.97.5.g945d6a4.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: fontforge = 20090224.1.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: gcc = 4.4.0.0.22.x86_64 BuildRequires: glibc-devel = 2.9.90.7.x86_64 BuildRequires: glibc-headers = 2.9.90.7.x86_64 BuildRequires: grep = 2.5.3.4.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: gzip = 1.3.12.8.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: jack-audio-connection-kit-devel = 0.116.1.4.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: kernel-headers = 2.6.29.0.203.rc7.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: libstdc++-devel = 4.4.0.0.22.x86_64 BuildRequires: make = 1:3.81.15.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: patch = 2.5.4.38.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: perl = 4:5.10.0.58.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: pkgconfig = 1:0.23.8.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: portaudio-devel = 19.8.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: qt-devel = 1:4.5.0.3.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: sazanami-gothic-fonts = 0.20040629.7.20061016.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: sazanami-mincho-fonts = 0.20040629.7.20061016.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: sed = 4.1.5.12.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: stix-fonts = 0.9.12.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: tar = 2:1.21.2.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: texlive = 2007.41.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: thai-scalable-garuda-fonts = 0.4.11.2.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: thai-scalable-kinnari-fonts = 0.4.11.2.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: thai-scalable-umpush-fonts = 0.4.11.2.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: vlgothic-fonts = 20090204.3.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: zlib-devel = 1.2.3.20.fc11.x86_64 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485641] Review Request: pdftk - The PDF Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485641 --- Comment #21 from Tom Davidson 2009-03-06 11:46:05 EDT --- Sorry, wrong URL there, I meant that I was able to install the F11 itext binary package on F10: ftp://fr.rpmfind.net/linux/fedora/development/i386/os/Packages/itext-2.1.4-5.fc11.i586.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 483376] Review Request: fluid-soundfont - Pro-quality GM/GS soundfont
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483376 --- Comment #10 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-03-06 11:49:06 EDT --- No, the gus patches are going to a different subpackage, which will be ~250MB. The main package size won't change (~131MB) Oh, by the way, I can trim a few more banks to get the gus subpackage down to as low as ~100MB or so. But then it won't have as many banks as PersonalCopy-Lite-patches has. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483376] Review Request: fluid-soundfont - Pro-quality GM/GS soundfont
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483376 --- Comment #11 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-03-06 11:55:09 EDT --- You'd know better than I would as to what decisions to make here. Make one and let me know what to 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 486760] Review Request: mscore - Music Composition & Notation Software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486760 --- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-06 11:40:39 EDT --- rpmlint: mscore-mscore-fonts.x86_64: W: no-documentation mscore-mscore-fonts.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486760] Review Request: mscore - Music Composition & Notation Software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486760 --- Comment #4 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-06 11:58:20 EDT --- Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1227091 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486760] Review Request: mscore - Music Composition & Notation Software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486760 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(oget.fed...@gmail ||.com) --- Comment #5 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-06 12:02:51 EDT --- You might want to have a look at this build log, because there is some problem building one of the fonts: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1227093&name=build.log -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483376] Review Request: fluid-soundfont - Pro-quality GM/GS soundfont
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483376 --- Comment #12 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-03-06 12:05:30 EDT --- Well, it is a matter of choice between freedom and quality (fluid-soundfont) versus convenience in terms of package size (pclite-soundfont). I would personally vote for freedom and quality. Also, I believe that many people who are into music/audio production prefer quality. If it is up to me I would choose http://6mata.com:8014/review/fluid-soundfont.spec.with.gus Note that, you will need to download the SRPM in the original message and overwrite its SPEC file with this one to review the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486760] Review Request: mscore - Music Composition & Notation Software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486760 --- Comment #6 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-06 12:07:24 EDT --- As a general comment, these are the packages that auto- buildrequires found, which don't seem to be mentioned in your BuildRequires. (But that doesn't necessarily mean they all need to be listed explicitly, because they might be in the Koji core packages, or found indirectly through other packages - nevertheless, worth considering). BuildRequires: baekmuk-ttf-batang-fonts = 2.2.20.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: baekmuk-ttf-dotum-fonts = 2.2.20.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: baekmuk-ttf-gulim-fonts = 2.2.20.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: baekmuk-ttf-hline-fonts = 2.2.20.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: cjkuni-uming-fonts = 0.2.20080216.1.21.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: dejavu-sans-fonts = 2.28.6.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: dejavu-sans-mono-fonts = 2.28.6.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: dejavu-serif-fonts = 2.28.6.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: fontconfig = 2.6.97.5.g945d6a4.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: libstdc++-devel = 4.4.0.0.22.x86_64 BuildRequires: perl = 4:5.10.0.58.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: pkgconfig = 1:0.23.8.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: sazanami-gothic-fonts = 0.20040629.7.20061016.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: sazanami-mincho-fonts = 0.20040629.7.20061016.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: stix-fonts = 0.9.12.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: thai-scalable-garuda-fonts = 0.4.11.2.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: thai-scalable-kinnari-fonts = 0.4.11.2.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: thai-scalable-umpush-fonts = 0.4.11.2.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: vlgothic-fonts = 20090204.3.fc11.noarch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488995] New: Review Request: pidgin-tlen - Tlen IM Pidgin plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: pidgin-tlen - Tlen IM Pidgin plugin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488995 Summary: Review Request: pidgin-tlen - Tlen IM Pidgin plugin Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: r...@greysector.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/pidgin-tlen.spec SRPM URL: http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/pidgin-tlen-0-0.1.20090209.fc9.src.rpm Description: This is a Tlen chat plugin for Pidgin and libpurple messengers. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480724] Review Request: djbdns - A Domain Name System by D. J. Bernstein
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #24 from Mark Johnson 2009-03-06 12:11:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #21) > This is generally how the GPL works. > > If you take file A, which is under Public Domain (all rights granted to > everyone) and file B, which is under some version of the GPL, and you compile > them together to generate binary C, binary C is under the terms of the GPL, > because the GPL is by far the more restrictive license, and the terms of file > A are all being met by it. I didn't ask about a hypothetical binary C. To use your terminology for this thought experiment, do the terms of the GPL apply to file A, if file A and only file A, is obtained from pjp's djbdns-1.05.1.tar.gz, which includes a copy of v3 of the GPL? > No, but I'm pretty sure the latest release for all of his code drops took out > the copyright statement. He has also issued blanket To my knowledge, the last release of djbdns was 8 years ago and he did not issue a new release when he abandoned his copyright. The tarball at: http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.tar.gz still contains this in the README: djbdns 1.05 20010211 Copyright 2001 D. J. Bernstein > Thus, there is no need to retain his copyright statement, as it clearly no > longer applies. To re-add it would be incorrect and misleading. I did not say his copyright statement should be retained. I'm just trying to say that when it is removed (as it already has been), his declaration at http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html should be referenced explicitly. > Given that he has abandoned copyright entirely, he no longer has any say in > what anyone does with it. No, but it's no excuse to get sloppy and give people the wrong idea, either. I've got my own public domain fork of djbdns and I would very much appreciate it if pjp was very clear that the original material he based his fork on was public domain. In any event, we're seriously cluttering this bug/ticket up. Suggest we take any further discussions elsewhere or just table them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486760] Review Request: mscore - Music Composition & Notation Software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486760
--- Comment #7 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-06 12:20:21
EDT ---
Here is my partial review:
- rpmlint output
See comment 2. These can both be fixed.
? package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
I may be missing something, but why is this package not called
"musescore" to match upstream? The problem with the current
name is that it's confusing with names like "mscorefonts" (the
MS Core Fonts package found in some distros like Debian).
+ 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
Very complex licensing situation, but the packager seems to have
done a good job resolving the different licenses involved.
+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
I unpacked the sources and the upstream tarball and compared them
with 'diff -urN' and the only difference is the files that the
packager has removed because of licensing problems.
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
On x86_64.
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
- BuildRequires list all build dependencies
Fails to build in Koji.
? %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
This doesn't use ordinary locale files, but some sort of Qt thing.
Can the packager point to any guidance on how to package these?
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun
n/a does not use Prefix: /usr
+ package owns all directories it creates
+ 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
+ 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
n/a 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
+ 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
? translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
- reviewer should build the package in mock
? the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
- 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 171993] Review Request: mpich2 - An implementation of MPI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=171993
Tom "spot" Callaway changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tcall...@redhat.com
--- Comment #95 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-03-06
12:25:53 EDT ---
== REVIEW ==
- rpmlint checks return:
mpich2-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
mpich2-libs.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/mpich2-64/mpe_callstack_ldflags.conf
mpich2-libs.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/mpich2-64/mpe_f77env.conf
mpich2-libs.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/mpich2-64/mpe_graphics.conf
mpich2-libs.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/mpich2-64/mpe_help.conf
mpich2-libs.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/mpich2-64/mpe_log.conf
mpich2-libs.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/mpich2-64/mpe_log_postlib.conf
mpich2-libs.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/mpich2-64/mpe_mpianim.conf
mpich2-libs.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/mpich2-64/mpe_mpicheck.conf
mpich2-libs.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/mpich2-64/mpe_mpilog.conf
mpich2-libs.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/mpich2-64/mpe_mpitrace.conf
mpich2-libs.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/mpich2-64/mpe_nolog.conf
mpich2-libs.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/mpich2-64/mpicc.conf
mpich2-libs.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/mpich2-64/mpicxx.conf
mpich2-libs.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/mpich2-64/mpif77.conf
mpich2-libs.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/mpich2-64/mpif90.conf
mpich2-libs.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/mpich2-64/mpixxx_opts.conf
Please make those files be %config(noreplace), so if the user makes local
changes, they aren't overwritten on an update.
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (MIT) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream (41d6f6ce1034ecec5c14fb03592730ae2dd071e5)
However, your Source0: URL is wrong, it should be :
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/research/projects/mpich2/downloads/tarballs/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- package compiles on devel (x86_64)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file
Show me a spec with the two items I noted resolved and I will approve this
package.
--
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 480724] Review Request: djbdns - A Domain Name System by D. J. Bernstein
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #25 from _pjp_ 2009-03-06 12:27:47 EDT --- Hey Mark, hi > I did not say his copyright statement should be retained. I'm just trying to > say that when it is removed (as it already has been), his declaration at > > http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html > > should be referenced explicitly. It's done, please see the latest files. > No, but it's no excuse to get sloppy and give people the wrong idea, either. > I've got my own public domain fork of djbdns and I would very much appreciate > it if pjp was very clear that the original material he based his fork on was > public domain. Sure, may be I'll put up a web-page to this effect in couple of days, guess that should be okay. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488968] Review Request: fedora-app-install - Fedora application 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=488968 James Antill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||james.ant...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from James Antill 2009-03-06 12:39:50 EDT --- This should not be approved for Fedora. We have a mechanism for shipping repository metadata, and bundling it in packages is not 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 475098] Review Request: python-Traits - Explicitly typed attributes for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475098 Jesse Keating changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Jesse Keating 2009-03-06 12:41:30 EDT --- OK, looks good 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 488968] Review Request: fedora-app-install - Fedora application 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=488968 seth vidal changed: What|Removed |Added CC||svi...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from seth vidal 2009-03-06 12:42:13 EDT --- +1 to Comment #2. We've shipped package metadata in packages in the past. Comps and specspo come to mind. They were both abject failures at being kept current and maintained. We're much better off doing this repo-side only. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486760] Review Request: mscore - Music Composition & Notation Software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486760 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(oget.fed...@gmail | |.com) | --- Comment #8 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-03-06 12:55:15 EDT --- Many thanks for the comments. The build failure is due to some changes in the TeX system of rawhide. It may be a TeX bug. I'm currently investigating the situation. The package builds on mock and runs fine on F-10. As for the AutoBuildRequires output: Those fonts are definitely not all required. I believe that the other ones are optional checks of the mscore configuration script. This package is named mscore in Debian, Mandriva and Ubuntu. It is based on the tarball name I suppose. I'll go over the other questions/comments you made. But let me solve this rawhide build issue first. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455227] Review Request: php-pecl-parsekit - PHP Opcode Analyser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455227 --- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-06 12:52:54 EDT --- I note that this fails to build currently (which isn't surprising given its age and all of the compiler changes that have happened recently). The error is: libtool: compile: gcc -I. -I/builddir/build/BUILD/parsekit-1.2 -DPHP_ATOM_INC -I/builddir/build/BUILD/parsekit-1.2/include -I/builddir/build/BUILD/parsekit-1.2/main -I/builddir/build/BUILD/parsekit-1.2 -I/usr/include/php -I/usr/include/php/main -I/usr/include/php/TSRM -I/usr/include/php/Zend -I/usr/include/php/ext -I/usr/include/php/ext/date/lib -I/usr/include/php -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -c /builddir/build/BUILD/parsekit-1.2/parsekit.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/parsekit.o /builddir/build/BUILD/parsekit-1.2/parsekit.c: In function 'php_parsekit_parse_node': /builddir/build/BUILD/parsekit-1.2/parsekit.c:68: warning: implicit declaration of function 'Z_SET_REFCOUNT_P' /builddir/build/BUILD/parsekit-1.2/parsekit.c: In function 'php_parsekit_parse_op_array': /builddir/build/BUILD/parsekit-1.2/parsekit.c:318: error: 'zend_op_array' has no member named 'this_var' There are other following 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 463080] Review Request: cl-base64 - A Common Lisp BASE64 implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463080 --- Comment #3 from Anthony Green 2009-03-06 12:57:47 EDT --- Yes, I'll try to upload them somewhere else this weekend. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253355] Review Request: twill - A simple scripting language for Web browsing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253355 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks||201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution||NOTABUG --- Comment #18 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-06 13:01:39 EDT --- I'll close it out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457160] Review Request: Zorba - General purpose XQuery processor implemented in C++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457160 --- Comment #19 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-06 12:58:57 EDT --- This failed to build for me in current rawhide, but I don't understand the error. During the cmake invocation I get this: -- processing store dir /builddir/build/BUILD/zorba-0.9.5/src/store/naive CMake Error at cmake_modules/AddSrcSubfolder.cmake:42 (FILE): file RelativePath must be passed a full path to the file: � (with the non-ascii character). What follows is a call stack, then the cmake run continues but aborts at the end with -- Configuring incomplete, errors occurred! I don't really know anything about cmake, so I can't suggest much. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475971] Review Request: gadget - MPP server component for tracking presence
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475971 Tomeu Vizoso changed: What|Removed |Added CC||to...@sugarlabs.org --- Comment #4 from Tomeu Vizoso 2009-03-06 13:04:00 EDT --- fwiw, the spec lives here now: http://people.sugarlabs.org/marcopg/gadget.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 487296] Review Request: sssd - System Security Services Daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487296 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Hrozek 2009-03-06 13:04:34 EDT --- New SRPM and specfile that should address your comments. Also adds an initscript. http://jhrozek.fedorapeople.org/sssd/sssd-0.1.0-4.fc10.src.rpm http://jhrozek.fedorapeople.org/sssd/sssd.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 489014] New: Review Request: gnome-do-plugins - Plugins for Gnome Do
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: gnome-do-plugins - Plugins for Gnome Do https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489014 Summary: Review Request: gnome-do-plugins - Plugins for Gnome Do Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: pala...@gmx.de QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://palango.fedorapeople.org/do-plugins/gnome-do-plugins.spec SRPM URL: http://palango.fedorapeople.org/do-plugins/gnome-do-plugins-0.8.0-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: GNOME Do allows you to quickly search for many objects present in your GNOME desktop environment (applications, Evolution contacts, Firefox bookmarks, files, artists and albums in Rhythmbox, Pidgin buddies) and perform commonly used commands on those objects (Run, Open, Email, Chat, Play, etc.). This package contains various plugins for GNOME Do. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457160] Review Request: Zorba - General purpose XQuery processor implemented in C++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457160 --- Comment #20 from Michael Schwendt 2009-03-06 13:44:35 EDT --- Jason, see comment 13. Asking the Fedora cmake owners hasn't lead to anything. This problem hasn't been encountered before by them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239770] Review Request: gsm - GSM speech compressor 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=239770 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2009-03-06 13:47:37 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: gsm New Branches: EL-4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
