[Bug 478806] Review Request: simh - A highly portable, multi-system emulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478806 --- Comment #4 from Lucian Langa 2009-03-12 02:39:27 EDT --- Well most of this computers come from late '60 and early '70 when computers had large front panels of switches allowing the user to enter programs directly from the panel into memory. This package allows to examine and deposit memory or registers of such systems. There are ways of creating your own images to boot from. There is also a tools package (simtools) available for this computers that allows cross-compiling and image manipulation. Also there are lots of software available for this machines that are public domain and completely unrestricted. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468604] Review Request: echolinux - Linux echolink client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468604 --- Comment #9 from Lucian Langa 2009-03-12 02:41:42 EDT --- using this generic name I accidentally mix-up files. new version: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/echolinux.spec http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/echolinux-0.17a-3.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468604] Review Request: echolinux - Linux echolink client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468604 --- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-12 01:51:41 EDT --- The "generate-tarball.sh" script seems to be made for some other 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 469470] Review Request: mz - A fast versatile packet generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469470 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(boni.vi...@gmail. ||com) --- Comment #20 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-12 01:36:11 EDT --- Did anything ever happen here? It's been three months now since wolfy's comment. I guess I'll go ahead and close this soon if there's no further progress. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489830] Review Request: figlet - FIGlet is a program for making large letters out of ordinary text
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489830 --- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-12 01:32:35 EDT --- There have been significant license issues in the past. Did check the previous attempt, bug 454917? Has the license on the offending code changed? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480999] Review Request: python-webflash - Portable flash messages for WSGI apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480999 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti...@math.uh.edu Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-12 01:28:10 EDT --- Builds fine; rpmlint says: python-webflash.noarch: W: no-documentation True, and not a problem. python-webflash.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1-0.1a8 ['0.1-0.1.a8.fc11', '0.1-0.1.a8'] I think there's a period missing from the changelog version between "1" and "a8". Not a huge deal but good to fix. Does the test suite actually do anything? I just get: nose.plugins.cover: ERROR: Coverage not available: unable to import coverage module I'm not that familiar with python tests so I could use a hint here. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 1fe890b93fd0d06b7c6fb95cce46337e51e6bacd6ed52aaed09ac8bd52126c5e WebFlash-0.1a8.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. X rpmlint has a valid complaint. * final provides and requires are sane: python-webflash = 0.1-0.1.a8.fc11 = python(abi) = 2.6 python-simplejson ? %check is present but I'm completely unsure of whether it's doing anything. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * code, not content. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481333] Review Request: sugar-update-control - Activity update control panel 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=481333 --- Comment #21 from Bernie Innocenti 2009-03-12 01:24:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19) > Why is this being pushed to F-10, when it's > Requires: sugar >= 0.83 > can't be satisfied? (F-10 currently has sugar-0.82.9-4.fc10) sugar-update-control should also work with sugar-0.82. I would recommend pushing all of 0.84 to F10 though. You don't normally do major upgrades on a stable release, but I would be surprised if there were actual users depending on 0.82.x on Fedora 10, because for a number of reasons this release wasn't really usable on anything but the XO, and not very usable there either. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489803] Review Request: libserial - C++ library to access serial ports on POSIX systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489803
Ralf Corsepius changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rc040...@freenet.de
--- Comment #3 from Ralf Corsepius 2009-03-12 01:16:55
EDT ---
Some comments (leaving a formal review to Kevin):
- BR: gzip and BR: libtool are superfluous
Please remove them.
- Explicitly gzip'ing man-pages is a mistake.
rpm automatically compresses man-pages to the compression format _it_ prefers
by itself.
Please remove the gzip ../man/.. line
- Package installs a man3 man-page called "todo.3"
This is a) too general and b) hardly useful.
Please remove this man-page.
- Fedora specs are supposed not to set Vendor:
Please remove this.
- I for one prefer packages which encapsulate their headers in a
package-specific subdir of /usr/include, instead to put them directly into
/usr/include.
=> Proposal: Install the headers into /usr/include/libserial
(%configure ... --includedir=%{_includedir}/libserial)
[Note: This is just my personal preference and is not a must.]
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488124] Review Request: gnubik - 3D interactive graphics puzzle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488124 Alexey Torkhov changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Alexey Torkhov 2009-03-12 00:44:36 EDT --- Have more practice :) Thanks for review! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: gnubik Short Description: 3D interactive graphics puzzle Owners: atorkhov Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478852] Review Request: lpairs - Classical memory game with cards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478852 --- Comment #16 from Alexey Torkhov 2009-03-12 00:46:30 EDT --- Don't forget to add comps.xml. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483615] Review Request: CodeAnalyst - Performance Analysis Suite for AMD-based System (based on Oprofile)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483615 --- Comment #31 from Suravee Suthikulpanit 2009-03-12 00:45:51 EDT --- I have posted the new SRPM and spec files here: Spec URL: http://ftp-developer.amd.com/user/ssuthiku/CodeAnalyst-gui-2.8.38-8.fc10/CodeAnalyst-gui.spec SRPM URL: http://ftp-developer.amd.com/user/ssuthiku/CodeAnalyst-gui-2.8.38-8.fc10/CodeAnalyst-gui-2.8.38-8.fc10.src.rpm NOTE: - Fixed Koji build error - Add INSTALL="install -p" -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476471 --- Comment #50 from Michael Hideo 2009-03-12 00:40:02 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=334897) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=334897) Using Fedora Versioned RPM Names Afford Functionality Jens, Attached is a screenshot of a practical use case where we are using installing different versions of the fedora security guide on the same distro. By having separate Fedora versioned packages, system administrators can read and perform specific fedora release procedures. This saves them from having to install the Security Guide package on 3 different instances of Fedora. Does this make sense? - Mike -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 469569] Review Request: latex2rtf - LaTeX to RTF converter that handles equations, figures, and cross-references
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469569 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti...@math.uh.edu Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-12 00:37:24 EDT --- Yes, this builds fine and rpmlint is silent. The Source0: URL doesn't seem to be correct. I believe you need to remove the "-unix" from the URL; it seems to work after that. You can use "spectool -g *spec" to test your source URLs. There's a copy of the GPL in doc/copying.txt that needs to be included in the package. There is a test suite included; a simple "make check" will run it. It requires build deps on texlive-latex and ImageMagick to run, but it doesn't actually complete. I don't know quite enough about TeX to understand why, though. I think it's worth looking into. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: bcdcd08b0211a05d3de03e9c8bdc80ddc5b6f16e53bab9ba86842368b37fa470 latex2rtf-1.9.19.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. X license text not included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none). * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: latex2rtf = 1.9.19-2.fc11 latex2rtf(x86-64) = 1.9.19-2.fc11 = /bin/sh ImageMagick info X %check is not present, but there's a test suite in the source. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * scriptlets are OK (texinfo installation). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489830] New: Review Request: figlet - FIGlet is a program for making large letters out of ordinary text
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: figlet - FIGlet is a program for making large letters out of ordinary text https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489830 Summary: Review Request: figlet - FIGlet is a program for making large letters out of ordinary text Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ra...@bludgeon.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://rayvd.fedorapeople.org/figlet/figlet.spec SRPM URL: http://rayvd.fedorapeople.org/figlet/figlet-2.2.2-1.src.rpm Description: FIGlet is a program for making large letters out of ordinary text -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489830] Review Request: figlet - FIGlet is a program for making large letters out of ordinary text
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489830 --- Comment #1 from Ray Van Dolson 2009-03-12 00:16:41 EDT --- Can't believe this isn't already in Fedora. License appears to be OK? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488010] Review Request: ibus-table-cangjie - Cang Jie input method for ibus-table.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488010
--- Comment #27 from Caius "kaio" Chance 2009-03-11
23:46:47 EDT ---
http://cchance.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ibus-table-cangjie.spec
http://cchance.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ibus-table-cangjie-1.1.0.20090309-2.fc11.src.rpm
Added index creation in %post for cangjie{3,5} and quick {3,5}.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461050] Review Request: tucnak2 - VHF contest logging program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461050 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti...@math.uh.edu Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-11 23:22:21 EDT --- Builds fine and rpmlint is silent. I believe the license of this program is GPLv2 (only); most of the source files just say "version 2" with no "or later" clause. I note that a newer version is out. I don't think it will significantly effect the packaging, but you can update if you like and I'll look it over. Note that the touch call in your recode function is backwards, so you don't actually preserve the date. It's not a big deal, but since you went to the effort I wonder about the files in /usr/share/tucnak2. If they're not actually used by the problem, would they be better off packaged as documentation? (Not that 100K of files really matter much, but I guess it's worth asking.) The desktop file has an error: key "Categories" is a list and does not have a semicolon as trailing character, fixing Since this file comes from upstream, I don't really see a need to patch it but you might want to inform upstream about it. I installed and ran this and it seemed to work, but I can get it to segfault repeatably by bringing up a map. Honestly I have no clue at all how to use the software so I was just blindly poking keys. That might be sufficiently crippling that it should be fixed before importing, but I don't really know. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 16ad9461034b4db7fc14848820f620bf978e523436547c67d6974ea36a730069 tucnak2-2.21.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field does not match the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: tucnak2 = 2.21-1.fc11 tucnak2(x86-64) = 2.21-1.fc11 = /usr/bin/perl libSDL-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libasound.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9.0rc4)(64bit) libftdi.so.1()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgpm.so.2()(64bit) libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libhamlib.so.2()(64bit) libpng12.so.0()(64bit) libpng12.so.0(PNG12_0)(64bit) libsndfile.so.1()(64bit) libsndfile.so.1(libsndfile.so.1.0)(64bit) libusb-0.1.so.4()(64bit) libutil.so.1()(64bit) libutil.so.1(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. o desktop files valid and installed properly (one desktop-file-complaint, should be reported upstream). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488124] Review Request: gnubik - 3D interactive graphics puzzle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488124 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |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 488124] Review Request: gnubik - 3D interactive graphics puzzle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488124
--- Comment #8 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-03-11
22:31:21 EDT ---
Everything is good except there is one little thing that is actually my fault.
The "makeinfo doc/%{name}.texinfo" command builds the %{name}.info file in the
root of the source tree, not in the doc/ directory. Moreover, if the
%{name}.info file in the doc/ directory is missing the Makefile will build it,
provided that texinfo is available.
So instead of using "makeinfo doc/%{name}.texinfo" in build, we just need to do
"rm doc/%{name}.info" in %prep and the Makefile will take care of the rest.
This is the only change that needs to be done and again I'm sorry for the
confusion. I should have been more careful. I'm approving the package now.
Please correct this issue before you commit.
-
This package (gnubik) is APPROVED by oget
-
By the way. It took me about 10 minutes to solve the 3x3x3 cube with this game.
It normally takes me about ~90 seconds on a real cube. Any tips? :)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468631] Review Request: libgarmin - C library to parse and use Garmin image files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468631 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti...@math.uh.edu Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #13 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-11 22:01:18 EDT --- Builds fine and rpmlint is silent. Since this package has only static libraries, it's OK that they're in the devel package but you must provide libgarmin-static (and any packages that need to link against the .a need build dependencies on it). Most files don't seem to have a license block; those that do are GPLv2 (only) and the author adds a note at the head of the COPYING file which clarifies v2 only for the rest. The description could use a little cleanup. I would suggest something like: Libgarmin is a library used to parse IMG files from Garmin GPS devices. The COPYING, REAMDE and TODO files are duplicated. You should choose one package to contain them. * source files match upstream (manually compared with checkout). * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. X description could use a bit of grammar work. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. X final provides and requires: libgarmin-0-0.5.20090212svn.fc11.x86_64.rpm libgarmin = 0-0.5.20090212svn.fc11 libgarmin(x86-64) = 0-0.5.20090212svn.fc11 = (none) libgarmin-devel-0-0.5.20090212svn.fc11.x86_64.rpm pkgconfig(libgarmin) = 0.1 libgarmin-devel = 0-0.5.20090212svn.fc11 libgarmin-devel(x86-64) = 0-0.5.20090212svn.fc11 X needs libgarmin-static = /usr/bin/pkg-config libgarmin = 0-0.5.20090212svn.fc11 pkgconfig * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. X duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel package. * pkgconfig files are in the -devel package; pkgconfig dependency is present. X static libraries are in the -devel package, but there is no -static provide. * no libtool .la files. The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package reviews recently, please consider doing 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 488174] Review Request: nimbus-theme-gnome - The Nimbus theme originally from Sun
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488174 --- Comment #4 from Matej Cepl 2009-03-11 20:13:48 EDT --- Updated http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/rpms/nimbus-theme-gnome-0.0.17-2.fc10.src.rpm (URL of the spec file is the same) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487007] Review Request: python-stomp - A python client implementation of the STOMP 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=487007 Oisin Mulvihill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||oisin.mulvih...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Oisin Mulvihill 2009-03-11 19:47:22 EDT --- Hi There, I'm stomper's author. I didn't realise these file were there when I generated the tar gzip on my laptop. Its strange as they only seem to appear inside the tar gzip. I guess I should just generate the tgz on linux instead of the mac ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487791] Request to restore knemo package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487791 nucleo changed: What|Removed |Added Component|Package Review |knemo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489803] Review Request: libserial - C++ library to access serial ports on POSIX systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489803 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ke...@tummy.com --- Comment #2 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-03-11 19:23:37 EDT --- I can try and review this this weekend and see about sponsoring you... If anyone else cares to do so before then, feel free. ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489803] Review Request: libserial - C++ library to access serial ports on POSIX systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489803 --- Comment #1 from Alex71 2009-03-11 18:53:56 EDT --- Further information: Before testing with koji, I checked the builds using rpmlint. As required, I subscribed to fedora-devel-annou...@redhat.com and fedora-package-review@redhat.com mailing lists I already have a FAS account, too (nyrk71) and I'm often in the #fedora channel on irc.freenode.net with the registered nick: nyrk71. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464016] Review Request: eclipse-findbugs - Eclipse plugin for FindBugs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464016 Bug 464016 depends on bug 464014, which changed state. Bug 464014 Summary: Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464014 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-11 18:51:16 EDT --- eclipse-findbugs-1.3.7-4.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/eclipse-findbugs-1.3.7-4.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 489803] Review Request: libserial - C++ library to access serial ports on POSIX systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489803 Itamar Reis Peixoto changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ita...@ispbrasil.com.br Depends on||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489803] New: Review Request: libserial - C++ library to access serial ports on POSIX systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: libserial - C++ library to access serial ports on POSIX systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489803 Summary: Review Request: libserial - C++ library to access serial ports on POSIX systems Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: nyr...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://nyrk.awardspace.com/SRPMS/libserial.spec SRPM URL: http://nyrk.awardspace.com/SRPMS/libserial-0.5.2-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: libserial (http://libserial.sourceforge.net/) is a collection of C++ classes which allow the serial port on POSIX systems to be accessed like an iostream object. Special functions are provided for setting various parameters of the serial port such as the baud rate, character size, flow control and others. This is my first package so I'm seeking a sponsor. The package has been built following the fedora project guidelines and has been tested with koji (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/tasks?state=closed&owner=nyrk71) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488124] Review Request: gnubik - 3D interactive graphics puzzle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488124 --- Comment #7 from Alexey Torkhov 2009-03-11 18:07:44 EDT --- Spec URL: http://atorkhov.fedorapeople.org/gnubik.spec SRPM URL: http://atorkhov.fedorapeople.org/gnubik-2.3-4.fc10.src.rpm (In reply to comment #5) > Okay, here's the rest of the full review: (* = blockers, ! = suggestions) > > * The Release field in the above SPEC file is incorrect. Sorry, I put wrong version of spec. > ! Please expand the description to 80 columns. Fixed. > * Please remove the binary .gmo files in %prep Fixed. > ! It would probably better to build the .info file from source with something > like >makeinfo doc/gnubik.texinfo > Note that this will need adding texinfo to BuildRequries. Fixed. > ! The BRs: libX11-devel mesa-libGL-devel mesa-libGLU-devel gtk2-devel are not > necessary. They will be pulled up by gtkglext-devel. > (Side note: When we really need to BR mesa-libGL-devel or mesa-libGLU-devel, > we > should BR the virtual provides' libGL-devel libGLU-devel. But as I said above, > this is unnecessay for this package) Those libs are explicitly checked in configure and used in code. I'd like to leave it in perfection of agreement between spec and code :) > ! The explicit Requires: hicolor-icon-theme is not necessary. It will be > automatically picked up by dependency chain. I would prefer if this dep is also listed explicitly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487791] Request to restore knemo package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487791 --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-11 17:58:26 EDT --- If you would like this treated as a package review, please follow the instructions at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476622] Review Request: ocaml-pa-do - OCaml syntax extension for delimited overloading
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476622 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti...@math.uh.edu Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #11 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-11 17:48:41 EDT --- forge.ocamlcore.org's certificate is invalid (or at least self-signed); I recommend using http links so tools like spectool will work. There's no separate %check section, but I think the tests are running during %build. However, I'm not really sure how to read the output. Are they being run, or just built? Any hints for me? It looks like 0.8.4 is out. I doubt it will make much difference packaging wise so I'll go ahead and review this and you can update if you like. The license file is duplicated; current guidelines forbid this. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 87b7f3f782b448e13924630a29511eb064c6e1bb613eabcbb733d7c4c445dc0c pa_do-0.8.3.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. X latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: ocaml-pa-do-0.8.3-2.fc11.x86_64.rpm ocaml(Pa_do) = 971be223d707310f2a458c64d3419d67 ocaml(Pa_do_nums) = 091e99b411e6b077e65bf341508e57f2 ocaml(Pa_do_top) = 5ec8bd77ec745470937cd44f0e4c37e2 ocaml(Pa_infix) = 01c10d0e5d9d4982c560905f9590445e ocaml-pa-do = 0.8.3-2.fc11 ocaml-pa-do(x86-64) = 0.8.3-2.fc11 = ocaml(Arg) = b6513be035dc9c8a458c189cd8841700 ocaml(Array) = 9c9fa5f11e2d6992c427dde4d1168489 ocaml(Big_int) = b094bddd70d11f4b8592f3957a8b3d9f ocaml(Buffer) = 23af67395823b652b807c4ae0b581211 ocaml(CamlinternalLazy) = ed280fb9736e9200aa47db73c5ff077f ocaml(CamlinternalOO) = f83f268cd1a00c37180b9b1fb9306031 ocaml(Camlp4) = bb930f7c2bed5d057c794fe07dc8596a ocaml(Camlp4_config) = 80b5d58834366711574a5ec4dfb123fd ocaml(Camlp4_import) = 901773aae9273de4d3a05d3a93dde334 ocaml(Char) = 3da72249626c7db769beafc97036cb4f ocaml(Consistbl) = caff227b73e80a299bc9064d8932a731 ocaml(Digest) = 310db9d3dd12d84178f002a532644c84 ocaml(Env) = 85c160706e01672db948b045d51d0663 ocaml(Filename) = 7cd172f02b7ee9b8d7bda3bb92144951 ocaml(Format) = b7ba3152a5eec5609d6ab86e6c51eebb ocaml(Hashtbl) = ee2a3220e38a4350c5bc131ce9f3f6ce ocaml(Ident) = d2f1896a13d2b6ab5a7f039f2e1e4baf ocaml(Int32) = b2545c419b6b6a173cac4c0a3e7e0277 ocaml(Int64) = d501d6e89fdce41c79f274fb464995d5 ocaml(Lazy) = 4c7ed568fa7b5f73a2aa02eeb0e5e12b ocaml(Lexing) = 4d17267334f1a6c75730dc3fae21fb9b ocaml(List) = a0e2e49d266ff302f8667651a43f71ba ocaml(Location) = 0d236ae3a37e3f5f553fe29e883ac46d ocaml(Longident) = af7a4daa7675e00536bcf34c30f1ef8e ocaml(Map) = d6ea0139afe59a16df7b23d35e571de7 ocaml(Nat) = 3ba7c2bfbc706aa841271c572dbb55de ocaml(Nativeint) = 7233ce5207a538fea4f0c61ed411ea2c ocaml(Num) = a130968f082cd5c0b9fd83b97c9603c1 ocaml(Obj) = c827f726ce05da709cf7de58fc15e324 ocaml(Parsing) = 29c3f123280f8e6e639cfb025b3c9a3f ocaml(Path) = 3f80ef0865cd9994e2dcb1444d86c8b9 ocaml(Pervasives) = 88cb1505c8bdf9a4dcd2cdf3452732b4 ocaml(Primitive) = ffb9c662271efdee731a555268b835a9 ocaml(Printf) = 807ecd3a1538992580464c03462c9964 ocaml(Queue) = 56b5e04dcda600ae0cdf49a37f17fcd9 ocaml(Random) = 462fc826fd1ae9df8d15e3cb798cba9d ocaml(Ratio) = 5ee67f3f53c78b1d40c5da48028935f3 ocaml(Set) = c4be5d24d30c129dd60d2739e54db7dd ocaml(Stream) = 91a43ea7fb16bf36f3f10c0dc7d08a0e ocaml(String) = ecc403546c1c50056801131811c39017 ocaml(Sys) = 21bf525b2b3f3a46a54b96163adfe387 ocaml(Topdirs) = 259bd544fdba007c4f0fb2efdbf8e3e2 ocaml(Toploop) = 85ab2f8a53c5adc2ef86abcfd6f2aa92 ocaml(Types) = 51884d3e170a51d2c53e50c054df93c5 ocaml(Warnings) = f8edde181ba3c5ccbccdbdcf0e922d3a ocaml(runtime) = 3.11.0 ocaml-pa-do-devel-0.8.3-2.fc11.x86_64.rpm ocaml-pa-do-devel = 0.8.3-2.fc11 ocaml-pa-do-devel(x86-64) = 0.8.3-2.fc11 = ocaml-pa-do = 0.8.3-2.fc11 ? Not sure about the test suite. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. X LICENSE file is duplicated. * file permissions are appropriate. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning
[Bug 489564] Review Request: Blueman - Bluetooth Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489564 Juan Manuel Rodriguez changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481034] Review Request: coccinelle - Semantic patching for Linux (spatch)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481034 Martin Nagy changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mn...@redhat.com --- Comment #14 from Martin Nagy 2009-03-11 17:13:01 EDT --- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489795] New: Review Request: backintime - Simple backup system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: backintime - Simple backup system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489795 Summary: Review Request: backintime - Simple backup system Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: cassmod...@fedoraproject.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/backintime-0.9.14/backintime.spec SRPM URL: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/backintime-0.9.14/backintime-0.9.14-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Back In Time is a simple backup system for Linux inspired from “flyback project” and “TimeVault”. The backup is done by taking snapshots of a specified set of directories. RPMLint-Issues: silent -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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
Steven M. Parrish changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|smparr...@shallowcreek.net
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Steven M. Parrish 2009-03-11
16:39:56 EDT ---
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
- Checked spec file and src.rpm 0 errors, 1 warnings
gadget.noarch: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/gadget
The service is enabled by default after "chkconfig --add"; for security
reasons, most services should not be. Use "-" as the default runlevel in the
init script's "chkconfig:" line and/or remove the "Default-Start:" LSB keyword
to fix this if appropriate for this service.
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
ok
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines
OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK
MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc
OK
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK all archs
MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
OK
MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
OK
MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
OK
MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
that directory.
OK
MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK
MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition
of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
OK
MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
OK
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
OK
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability).
OK
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
OK
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
OK
MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
OK
MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must
[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 --- Comment #9 from Steven M. Parrish 2009-03-11 16:42:43 EDT --- erikos, once you get this built for rawhide file a ticket with FESCO https://fedorahosted.org/fesco and ask if they can tag for f11-beta. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488124] Review Request: gnubik - 3D interactive graphics puzzle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488124
--- Comment #6 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-03-11
16:29:43 EDT ---
makeinfo doc/gnubik.texinfo
should be
makeinfo doc/%{name}.texinfo
in the above 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 478852] Review Request: lpairs - Classical memory game with cards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478852 Marcin Zajaczkowski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #15 from Marcin Zajaczkowski 2009-03-11 16:30:31 EDT --- Imported and built into devel, F-9 and F-10 branches. Package updates will be requested soon. Thanks for your help! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488124] Review Request: gnubik - 3D interactive graphics puzzle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488124 --- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-03-11 16:28:08 EDT --- Okay, here's the rest of the full review: (* = blockers, ! = suggestions) * The Release field in the above SPEC file is incorrect. ! Please expand the description to 80 columns. * Please remove the binary .gmo files in %prep ! It would probably better to build the .info file from source with something like makeinfo doc/gnubik.texinfo Note that this will need adding texinfo to BuildRequries. ! The BRs: libX11-devel mesa-libGL-devel mesa-libGLU-devel gtk2-devel are not necessary. They will be pulled up by gtkglext-devel. (Side note: When we really need to BR mesa-libGL-devel or mesa-libGLU-devel, we should BR the virtual provides' libGL-devel libGLU-devel. But as I said above, this is unnecessay for this package) ! The explicit Requires: hicolor-icon-theme is not necessary. It will be automatically picked up by dependency chain. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489564] Review Request: Blueman - Bluetooth Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489564
Christian Krause changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||c...@plauener.de
--- Comment #4 from Christian Krause 2009-03-11 16:26:15
EDT ---
Hi Juan,
I've done a rough review of your Review Request and there are a couple items
which needs to be addressed.
1. Since you're seeking sponsorship for the Packagers Group, please make your
Review Request block the FE-NEEDSPONSOR bug (see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join for details)
2. The Source0: field refers to the subversion repository. If there is no
upstream tarball it is necessary to provide some information how the tarball
gets generated. For details please see here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL . However, it this case it
looks like that upstream provides a tarball, so please refer to this location
in Source0:
http://download.tuxfamily.org/blueman/blueman-1.02.tar.gz
You can test whether you've used the correct URL by running
spectool -g SPECS/blueman.spec
it should download the correct source file.
3. The package doesn't build cleanly in mock since not all build requirements
are listed. Please setup mock locally - it is a big help to find missing build
requirements. ;)
For details please check the following wiki site:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/MockTricks
4. rpmlint is quite chatty about the spec file and the rpm files:
rpmlint SPECS/blueman.spec RPMS/i386/blueman-1.02-2.fc10.i386.rpm
RPMS/i386/blueman-debuginfo-1.02-2.fc10.i386.rpm
SRPMS/blueman-1.02-2.fc10.src.rpm
blueman.i386: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/blueman-1.02/README
blueman.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/autostart/blueman.desktop
blueman.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/_blueman.a
blueman.i386: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/blueman-1.02/NEWS
blueman.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/dbus-1/system.d/org.blueman.Mechanism.conf
blueman.i386: W: invalid-license GPL v3
blueman-debuginfo.i386: W: invalid-license GPL v3
blueman.src: W: invalid-license GPL v3
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings.
* zero-length files shouldn't be included
* please fix the license tag (see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Licensing and the links
there for details)
Using rpmlint helps to catch some well-known mistakes in spec files early. ;-)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Use_rpmlint
6. please don't package *.la files
7. *.a files should be omitted, too
8. to make the spec file more readable it is ok to use wildcards, e.g.:
%{_mandir}/man1/*
etc.
Please have a look at the mentioned items first and then I'll do a more
detailed review. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask!
Best regards,
Christian
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489130] Review Request: gnome-guitar - A small suite of applications for the guitarist
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489130 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-03-11 15:50:04 EDT --- Thank you for the review! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: gnome-guitar Short Description: A small suite of applications for the guitarist Owners: oget Branches: F-10 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487791] Request to restore knemo package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487791 nucleo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-package-rev...@redha ||t.com, nott...@redhat.com Component|knemo |Package 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 489337] Review Request: leonidas-backgrounds - Leonidas desktop backgrounds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489337 Martin Sourada 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 489337] Review Request: leonidas-backgrounds - Leonidas desktop backgrounds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489337 --- Comment #7 from Martin Sourada 2009-03-11 15:02:38 EDT --- Tagget for beta, so should be in rawhide within next compose. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489130] Review Request: gnome-guitar - A small suite of applications for the guitarist
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489130 Christian Krause changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Christian Krause 2009-03-11 14:58:31 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > I concur with Christian's review. Go ahead and make it official. Thanks Tom! Ok, so according to the review details in comment #4 and #6: -> 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 481333] Review Request: sugar-update-control - Activity update control panel 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=481333 --- Comment #20 from Rex Dieter 2009-03-11 14:46:38 EDT --- We had talked about the "sugar >= 0.83 and F-10" issue in irc, but I hadn't documented it here in the review (part of the reason why the review lacked "testing 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 481333] Review Request: sugar-update-control - Activity update control panel 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=481333 --- Comment #19 from Rex Dieter 2009-03-11 14:44:43 EDT --- Why is this being pushed to F-10, when it's Requires: sugar >= 0.83 can't be satisfied? (F-10 currently has sugar-0.82.9-4.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 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 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #30 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-03-11 14:16:44 EDT --- I'm setting the fedora-cvs flag to ?. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488124] Review Request: gnubik - 3D interactive graphics puzzle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488124 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 459579] Review Request: pike - Interpreted, high-level, object oriented language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459579 --- Comment #4 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-03-11 14:18:31 EDT --- I see. Could you repack pike with the latest version then? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459579] Review Request: pike - Interpreted, high-level, object oriented language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459579 --- Comment #3 from josef radinger 2009-03-11 14:16:44 EDT --- sorry no progress on perl. and with pike 7.8 perl-support is completly removed upstream -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 482884] Review Request: clc-intercal - Compiler for the INTERCAL language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482884 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-11 14:01:58 EDT --- clc-intercal-0-0.1.1._94._2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update clc-intercal'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-2613 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 482884] Review Request: clc-intercal - Compiler for the INTERCAL language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482884 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-11 14:02:45 EDT --- clc-intercal-0-0.1.1._94._2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update clc-intercal'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-2622 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489135] Review Request: tcpjunk - TCP protocols testing tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489135 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-11 14:03:23 EDT --- tcpjunk-2.649-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update tcpjunk'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-2627 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480859] Review Request: diffuse - graphical diff tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480859 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||0.2.15-4.fc10 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 470325] Review Request: qd - Double-Double and Quad-Double Arithmetic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470325 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||2.3.7-5.fc10 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 470325] Review Request: qd - Double-Double and Quad-Double Arithmetic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470325 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-11 14:02:16 EDT --- qd-2.3.7-5.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481428] Review Request: rednotebook - A desktop diary
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481428 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-11 14:00:06 EDT --- rednotebook-0.6.1-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update rednotebook'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-2602 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489353] Review Request: mingw32-expat - MinGW port of expat XML parser 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=489353 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||2.0.1-4.fc10 Resolution|RAWHIDE |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 464014] Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464014 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version||1.3.7-6.fc10 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 464014] Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464014 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-11 14:00:45 EDT --- findbugs-1.3.7-6.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480859] Review Request: diffuse - graphical diff tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480859 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-11 13:59:33 EDT --- diffuse-0.2.15-4.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483381] Review Request: metromap - Simple program for finding paths in subway/metro maps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483381 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-11 13:55:17 EDT --- metromap-0.1.2-3.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update metromap'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-2566 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489135] Review Request: tcpjunk - TCP protocols testing tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489135 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-11 13:58:38 EDT --- tcpjunk-2.649-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update tcpjunk'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-2592 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481428] Review Request: rednotebook - A desktop diary
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481428 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-11 13:56:23 EDT --- rednotebook-0.6.1-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update rednotebook'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-2576 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481333] Review Request: sugar-update-control - Activity update control panel 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=481333 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-11 13:56:39 EDT --- sugar-update-control-0.20-4.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489353] Review Request: mingw32-expat - MinGW port of expat XML parser 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=489353 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-11 13:57:39 EDT --- mingw32-expat-2.0.1-4.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470325] Review Request: qd - Double-Double and Quad-Double Arithmetic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470325 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-11 13:58:01 EDT --- qd-2.3.7-5.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483381] Review Request: metromap - Simple program for finding paths in subway/metro maps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483381 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-11 13:55:59 EDT --- metromap-0.1.2-3.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update metromap'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-2569 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481333] Review Request: sugar-update-control - Activity update control panel 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=481333 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||0.20-4.fc10 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 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 --- Comment #11 from Jan Zeleny 2009-03-11 13:44:39 EDT --- Updated SRPM: http://jzeleny.fedorapeople.org/packages/dcbd/dcbd-0.9.7-3.fc10.src.rpm Updated SPEC: http://jzeleny.fedorapeople.org/packages/dcbd/dcbd.spec All issues should be fixed 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 489686] Review Request: Armadillo - fast C++ matrix library with interfaces to LAPACK and ATLAS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489686 --- Comment #3 from Ralf Corsepius 2009-03-11 13:43:52 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > In other words, the user can do this: > g++ -o my_prog my_prog.cpp -larmadillo > Hence I am not sure whether splitting the package into run-time and -devel > packages is the best way to go. This is a classic devel-package use-case > Suggestions ? Move the headers and lib*.so into *-devel and let the main-package only contain lib*.x.y.z BTW: Unless I am mistaken, this package builds its libs stripped. In Fedora, libs are supposed to be built unstripped (rpm strips them later). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489751] New: Review Request: btanks - Funny battle game with tanks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: btanks - Funny battle game with tanks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489751 Summary: Review Request: btanks - Funny battle game with tanks Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: atork...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://atorkhov.fedorapeople.org/btanks.spec SRPM URL: http://atorkhov.fedorapeople.org/btanks-0.8.7686-2.fc10.src.rpm Description: Battle Tanks is a funny battle on your desk, where you can choose one of three vehicles and eliminate your enemy using the whole arsenal of weapons. has original cartoon-like graphics and cool music, it is fun and dynamic, it has several network modes for deathmatch and cooperative. What else is needed to have fun with your friends? And all is packed and ready for you in Battle Tanks. Rpmlint output: btanks.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libsdlx.so btanks.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libmrt.so btanks.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libclunk.so btanks.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libclunk.so e...@glibc_2.2.5 btanks.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libbt.so btanks.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libbt.so e...@glibc_2.2.5 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 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 477320] Review Request: ocaml-p3l - OCaml compiler for parallel programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477320 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti...@math.uh.edu Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-11 13:17:52 EDT --- This looks fine, save for the duplicated LICENSE and README.Fedora files. You will need to pick one package for each file to live in. The packaging guidelines have recently become much clearer on this. Is it possible (or reasonable) to run the tests in Examples/Tests at build time? I'm pretty sure that this is a syntax extension, so the .cmo files are needed. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 495e7231cf4cd17bf75405f5e5b507c0ff353349ec81866b3a851bd335c1eb18 ocamlp3l-2.03.tgz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: ocaml-p3l-2.03-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm ocaml(Basedefs) = 4300eb5891d190ace73a8c30faa55e01 ocaml(Command_options) = 3425ccf9d1bcf69c98bd6855fbf5d2d9 ocaml(Commlib) = 73b6bbd27d3ee98dc1d99b753845efcc ocaml(Grafp3l) = ef66145601ce1c290f7f3909e656f407 ocaml(Nodecode) = fcfbff84bc4c1e787e2190d072c60f0e ocaml(P3lstream) = 1e0b76796600f19bf3b4a3f7f8f590af ocaml(Parp3l) = 0a75d20f69876cdd7c7ac780ddae58e9 ocaml(Seqp3l) = 5c01c19be0632fc803d831b01649d39f ocaml(Server) = 00e0a391fd00a6a4d91543daf344c029 ocaml(Streams) = a4644f7bad89cbcd7631ec715002a54b ocaml(Template) = 1cfa9effbf934bd7300325692f0871b0 ocaml(Version) = 01540deec20bd5eb701d54711b534ce7 ocaml-p3l = 2.03-1.fc11 ocaml-p3l(x86-64) = 2.03-1.fc11 = ocaml(Arg) = b6513be035dc9c8a458c189cd8841700 ocaml(Array) = 9c9fa5f11e2d6992c427dde4d1168489 ocaml(Buffer) = 23af67395823b652b807c4ae0b581211 ocaml(CamlinternalLazy) = ed280fb9736e9200aa47db73c5ff077f ocaml(Graphics) = fa6011251a7c1017decb62fd8af77d0d ocaml(Hashtbl) = ee2a3220e38a4350c5bc131ce9f3f6ce ocaml(Int32) = b2545c419b6b6a173cac4c0a3e7e0277 ocaml(Int64) = d501d6e89fdce41c79f274fb464995d5 ocaml(Lazy) = 4c7ed568fa7b5f73a2aa02eeb0e5e12b ocaml(List) = a0e2e49d266ff302f8667651a43f71ba ocaml(Marshal) = 02be0525cda0ca38ef8d49584e7769d6 ocaml(Mutex) = 60fb057a4923c01932f593e58ab0bbac ocaml(Nativeint) = 7233ce5207a538fea4f0c61ed411ea2c ocaml(Obj) = c827f726ce05da709cf7de58fc15e324 ocaml(Pervasives) = 88cb1505c8bdf9a4dcd2cdf3452732b4 ocaml(Printexc) = fdf007941aa14d1a26323558012dbf52 ocaml(Printf) = 807ecd3a1538992580464c03462c9964 ocaml(Random) = 462fc826fd1ae9df8d15e3cb798cba9d ocaml(String) = ecc403546c1c50056801131811c39017 ocaml(Sys) = 21bf525b2b3f3a46a54b96163adfe387 ocaml(Thread) = da0ce921a4a489fa87637cc4648cf5e3 ocaml(Unix) = 0596a58544f8cd88fed5bf5432a53d43 ocaml(runtime) = 3.11.0 ocaml-p3l-devel-2.03-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm ocaml-p3l-devel = 2.03-1.fc11 ocaml-p3l-devel(x86-64) = 2.03-1.fc11 = ocaml-p3l = 2.03-1.fc11 ocaml-p3l-doc-2.03-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm ocaml-p3l-doc = 2.03-1.fc11 ocaml-p3l-doc(x86-64) = 2.03-1.fc11 = ocaml-p3l = 2.03-1.fc11 ? %check is not present, but there seem to be some tests. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. X a few duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * code, not content. * large docs are in a separate -doc package. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * .cma, .cmi, .so, .so.owner, META files in the main package. * .a, .cmxa, .cmx and .mli files are in the -devel subpackage. * .o and .ml files not included (.cmo fiels are OK as this is a syntax extension) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489686] Review Request: Armadillo - fast C++ matrix library with interfaces to LAPACK and ATLAS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489686 --- Comment #2 from Conrad Sanderson 2009-03-11 13:11:40 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) Thanks for the feedback -- I will address these issues. I have a further question & clarification with respect to point (c): > > c) Split the package into a run-time package and a *-devel package > The library code is entirely in C++ header files, however routines from LAPACK, BLAS and ATLAS are called. As such there is a convenience component in the form of a dummy run-time library (libarmadillo.so), which simply pulls in the LAPACK, BLAS and ATLAS libraries. The idea is that a user can simply link against libarmadillo.so, rather than individually linking against LAPACK etc. In other words, the user can do this: g++ -o my_prog my_prog.cpp -larmadillo instead of a longer: g++ -o my_prog my_prog.cpp -L/usr/lib/atlas -lblas -llapack -llapack_atlas Hence I am not sure whether splitting the package into run-time and -devel packages is the best way to go. Suggestions ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488124] Review Request: gnubik - 3D interactive graphics puzzle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488124 --- Comment #4 from Alexey Torkhov 2009-03-11 13:10:34 EDT --- Spec URL: http://atorkhov.fedorapeople.org/gnubik.spec SRPM URL: http://atorkhov.fedorapeople.org/gnubik-2.3-3.fc10.src.rpm * Wed Mar 11 2009 Alexey Torkhov - 2.3-3 - Put icon into hicolor theme (the whole 10 colors! :) - Add correct scriptlets and requires - Add GenericName to desktop file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488124] Review Request: gnubik - 3D interactive graphics puzzle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488124
--- Comment #3 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-03-11
12:48:17 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
>
> > * As far as I know, %{_datadir}/pixmaps is being deprecated and the new
> > applications should install their pixmaps under
> > %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/x/apps/
> > where is 32 in your case.
>
> Pixmaps dir is listed is seem not listed as deprecated in standard:
> http://standards.freedesktop.org/icon-theme-spec/latest/ar01s03.html
>
No, it's not deprecated, but to my knowledge, it is _being_ deprecated. At
least, comparing the size of pixmaps and hicolor directories, I think the
preference in Fedora is the latter. Also, I saw packages in Fedora, where the
images (that were installed by "make install") were moved from pixmaps to
hicolor in the %install section. I may be wrong with this so this is by no
means a blocker, you can keep images in pixmaps.
But if you use hicolor, please use the correct scriptlets from
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
Also, I think the image size is 32, not 48.
In addition, the %files section needs to be modified accordingly.
> > ! Please add a "Comment" key to the .desktop file. This could be useful for
> > gnome users.
>
> Fixed.
>
>
Thanks. But you didn't need to remove the GenericName. KDE makes use of
GenericName, while gnome uses Comment. I think it is best to have both of them.
I will go over this package and do the full review asap.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488124] Review Request: gnubik - 3D interactive graphics puzzle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488124
--- Comment #2 from Alexey Torkhov 2009-03-11 12:34:27
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> * The package fails to build (also the above koji links didn't give me
> anything).
>File not found by glob:
> /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/gnubik-2.3-1.fc10.x86_64/usr/share/pixmap/gnubik.*
>File not found by glob:
> /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/gnubik-2.3-1.fc10.x86_64/usr/share/man/man*/gnubik*
>
> This line looks problematic:
>install -Dp -m 644 doc/%{name}.6 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man6/%{name}.6
>
> Try to create the directory before installing the file.
Thanks. Install key -D somehow fails when building in mock.
> * As far as I know, %{_datadir}/pixmaps is being deprecated and the new
> applications should install their pixmaps under
> %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/x/apps/
> where is 32 in your case.
Pixmaps dir is listed is seem not listed as deprecated in standard:
http://standards.freedesktop.org/icon-theme-spec/latest/ar01s03.html
> ! Please add a "Comment" key to the .desktop file. This could be useful for
> gnome users.
Fixed.
Spec URL: http://atorkhov.fedorapeople.org/gnubik.spec
SRPM URL: http://atorkhov.fedorapeople.org/gnubik-2.3-2.fc10.src.rpm
* Wed Mar 11 2009 Alexey Torkhov - 2.3-2
- Don't using install -D that doesn't want to work in mock
- Fix incorrect usage of GenericName in desktop file
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 #18 from Lubomir Rintel 2009-03-11 12:23:41 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17) > Adding "Freely redistributable without restriction" along with the explanatory > comments is correct. Lifting FE-Legal. I'll include that in next package spin, which will be after someone does a full 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 489686] Review Request: Armadillo - fast C++ matrix library with interfaces to LAPACK and ATLAS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489686
Ralf Corsepius changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rc040...@freenet.de
--- Comment #1 from Ralf Corsepius 2009-03-11 12:18:21
EDT ---
This submission has several issues:
a) Package doesn't honor %{_libdir} (it installs its lib's to /usr/lib on
x86_64)
b) Please read (closely related to a))
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Cmake
c) Split the package into a run-time package and a *-devel package
d) Many of the BuildRequires are redundant (BR: *-devel normally automatically
pulls in the corresponding run-time packages)
e) This construct:
[ "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" != "/" ] && rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
is being frowned upon in Fedora.
Please use
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
instead
f) Whether a separate *-doc package is necessary/useful is arguable.
Technically, there is no need to have 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 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 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com Blocks|182235(FE-Legal)| --- Comment #17 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-03-11 12:14:36 EDT --- Adding "Freely redistributable without restriction" along with the explanatory comments is correct. Lifting FE-Legal. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Jochen Schmitt changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora_requires_release_not ||e? --- Comment #29 from Jochen Schmitt 2009-03-11 12:15:50 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: pdftk Short Description: the PDF Toolkit Owners: s4504kr, oget Branches: F-10 InitialCC: Attention: This is the resurrection of a retiered 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 489564] Review Request: Blueman - Bluetooth Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489564 --- Comment #3 from Juan Manuel Rodriguez 2009-03-11 11:38:23 EDT --- Updated Spec file: http://proyectofedora.org/mexico/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/blueman.spec Now includes all BuildRequires and Requires. Changed tag to dist tag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488124] Review Request: gnubik - 3D interactive graphics puzzle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488124
Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||oget.fed...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-03-11
11:35:10 EDT ---
My initial notes:
* The package fails to build (also the above koji links didn't give me
anything).
File not found by glob:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/gnubik-2.3-1.fc10.x86_64/usr/share/pixmap/gnubik.*
File not found by glob:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/gnubik-2.3-1.fc10.x86_64/usr/share/man/man*/gnubik*
This line looks problematic:
install -Dp -m 644 doc/%{name}.6 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man6/%{name}.6
Try to create the directory before installing the file.
* As far as I know, %{_datadir}/pixmaps is being deprecated and the new
applications should install their pixmaps under
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/x/apps/
where is 32 in your case.
! Please add a "Comment" key to the .desktop file. This could be useful for
gnome users.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489728] New: Review Request: kcheckers - Checkers board game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: kcheckers - Checkers board game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489728 Summary: Review Request: kcheckers - Checkers board game Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: atork...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://atorkhov.fedorapeople.org/kcheckers.spec SRPM URL: http://atorkhov.fedorapeople.org/kcheckers-0.8.1-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: The Qt version of the classic board game checkers. This game is also known as draughts. Rpmlint output clean. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489564] Review Request: Blueman - Bluetooth Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489564 David Woodhouse changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dw...@infradead.org --- Comment #2 from David Woodhouse 2009-03-11 11:30:31 EDT --- Missing BuildRequires: Pyrex -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 --- Comment #3 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-03-11 11:10:51 EDT --- Well, I got all of the licensing cleared up on this one except for the RipeMD stuff, that's all non-free, so I need to pull that code 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 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 Roman Rakus changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #16 from Roman Rakus 2009-03-11 10:55:56 EDT --- libservicelog-1.0.1-1.fc11 just built... Trust I can close this bug... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 #15 from Roman Rakus 2009-03-11 10:37:43 EDT --- Service group will be able to write into database. Every needed program will be in this group. Next question is database file permissions. I will push them as they are now (with executable bit) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams 2009-03-11 10:33:54 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: transifex Short Description: A system for distributed translation submissions Owners: ivazquez Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-5 InitialCC: i18n-team -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489130] Review Request: gnome-guitar - A small suite of applications for the guitarist
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489130 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #8 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-03-11 09:57:43 EDT --- I concur with Christian's review. Go ahead and make it official. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487044] Review Request: eee-control - Asus Eee PC hardware control and configuration tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487044 --- Comment #7 from Richard Hughes 2009-03-11 09:54:40 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > Fixing whatever needs fixing to use the standard interfaces should be. Totally agree. Then stuff "just works" with no random binaries being present. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489686] Review Request: Armadillo - fast C++ matrix library with interfaces to LAPACK and ATLAS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489686 blurb changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: Armadillo - |Review Request: Armadillo - |fast C++ matrix library |fast C++ matrix library |with interface to LAPACK|with interfaces to LAPACK |and ATLAS |and ATLAS -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489686] Review Request: Armadillo - fast C++ matrix library with interface to LAPACK and ATLAS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489686 blurb changed: What|Removed |Added CC||conrads...@ieee.org Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489686] New: Review Request: Armadillo - fast C++ matrix library with interface to LAPACK and ATLAS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: Armadillo - fast C++ matrix library with interface to LAPACK and ATLAS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489686 Summary: Review Request: Armadillo - fast C++ matrix library with interface to LAPACK and ATLAS Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: conrads...@ieee.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Hello, This is my first package, and hance I am kindly seeking a sponsor. I'd like to get a review so the package can be included in Fedora. Spec URL: http://arma.sourceforge.net/fedora/armadillo.spec SRPM URL: http://arma.sourceforge.net/fedora/armadillo-0.5.2-1.src.rpm Description: Armadillo is a streamlined C++ linear algebra library (matrix maths) aiming towards a good balance between speed and ease of use. Integer, floating point and complex numbers are supported, as well as a subset of trigonometric and statistics functions. Optional integration with LAPACK and ATLAS libraries is also provided. A delayed evaluation approach is employed (during compile time) to combine several operations into one and reduce (or eliminate) the need for temporaries. This is accomplished through recursive templates and template meta-programming. This library is useful if C++ has been decided as the language of choice (due to speed and/or integration capabilities), rather than another language like Octave. It is distributed under a license that is useful in both open-source and commercial contexts. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 439627] Review Request: gluegen - Java/JNI glue code generator to call out to ANSI 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=439627 --- Comment #21 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior 2009-03-11 08:20:39 EDT --- So, I'll take a look at cpptasks at first and see if I'm able to package 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 489598] Review Request: codelite - a powerful open-source, cross platform code editor for C/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=489598 --- Comment #8 from Itamar Reis Peixoto 2009-03-11 08:16:18 EDT --- there are also a folder called sqlite3, you need to get rid of then and include sql-devel in your buildrequires. :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 #16 from Lubomir Rintel 2009-03-11 07:52:42 EDT --- SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/yofrankie-bge.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/yofrankie-bge-1.4-0.3.20081221svn.src.rpm Investigation of crash issue [1] lead me to do the following change: Do not compress PNG images into JPEG: * It causes artifacts to appear (in main menu) * Replacing the references via python bindings produces file that crashes BGE * Upstream doesn't compress the images on DVD [1] https://projects.blender.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=18377&group_id=151&atid=445 NOTE: In case you have any of the previous versions of the package, you don't have to re-download the huge SRPM. You can just refresh the SPEC file, and download this additional source: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/yofrankie-bge-1.3-imgcompr.patch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488010] Review Request: ibus-table-cangjie - Cang Jie input method for ibus-table.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488010 --- Comment #26 from Caius "kaio" Chance 2009-03-11 07:34:38 EDT --- (In reply to comment #25) > Yep, adding ibus-table-quick later is fine: well whatever upstream decides - > but sounds like it makes sense to separate the quicks into a separate package. > :) Upstream has granted this decision make to me. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459874] Review Request: zeromq - Fast messaging 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=459874 --- Comment #19 from Peter Lemenkov 2009-03-11 07:32:44 EDT --- Updated to latest version 0.5 (they added AMQP compatibility and SCTP support). http://peter.fedorapeople.org/zeromq.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/zeromq-0.5-1.fc10.src.rpm The issues with python and java libraries still not resolved - I'll try to address these issues in a couple of days. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
