[Bug 475471] Review Request: poi - Java API to Access Microsoft Format Files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475471 --- Comment #9 from Sandro Mathys 2009-03-13 03:44:03 EDT --- I apologize, I'm really short in time lately and this will probably not change until the second half of the year. (new job, searching a flat, moving in, a.s.o.) Therefore, there's no update to this bug, I'm sorry. I know, that it's not a big thing to check with upstream about the licenses and the preshipped binaries (or to answer to this bug earlier) - but unfortunately, several little things add up to a big (i.e. time-consuming) pretty fast. Anyone's welcome to help here or take this over if they wish 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 459979] Review Request: mlt - Toolkit for broadcasters, video editors, media players, transcoders
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459979 Zarko changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zarko.pin...@gmail.com --- Comment #42 from Zarko 2009-03-13 03:56:23 EDT --- Hello, I took with Dan about ffmpeg libs in mlt. So, I have a question: Can we maybe build kdenlive's RPM on that way it can use mlt (without ffmpeg) if you do not have enabled fusion repo, or with mlt-ffmpeg if you have fusion enabled? Or on other hand, we must build two kdenlive RPMs. (one with mlt, and one with mlt-ffmpeg). That one without ffmpeg call kdenlive and put on Fedora's repo, and another call kdenlive-ffmpeg and put them on Fusion repo. I think this is unnecessary mess, and will be better put the mlt, mlt++ and kdenlive to Fusion repo. kind regards zarko -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472144] Review Request: tvbrowser - Free EPG for over 500 stations.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472144 --- Comment #17 from Sandro Mathys 2009-03-13 03:56:37 EDT --- No, currently not. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475017] Review Request: l2fprod-common - In JavaSE missing Swing components, inspired from modern user interfaces
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475017 --- Comment #11 from Sandro Mathys 2009-03-13 03:54:56 EDT --- Sorry, I don't see what I have to renew the SRPM for - do I need to change anything currently? I don't see any comment indicating such a thing... The license has not yet changed in the distributed package from upstream, so I won't change this here (nothing new from upstream) - or shall I go for the CVS? Still not sure if all licenses were corrected there, though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486937] Review Request: rhnlib - Python libraries for the RHN project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486937 Miroslav Suchy changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Miroslav Suchy 2009-03-13 04:32:59 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: rhnlib Short Description: Python libraries for the RHN project Owners: msuchy Branches: F-10, EL-4, EL-5 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476398] Review Request: eclib - A Library for Doing Computations on Elliptic Curves
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476398 --- Comment #4 from Alex Lancaster 2009-03-13 04:56:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > So, the issues are: > - use install -p > - fix the soname mess, probably install to a subdirectory of _libdir? Right, yes fix those issues and generate a new spec and I'll finish off the review. Also ping upstream about the license if you get a chance (not necessary for finishing the review). > (I'm aware that the release cannot be reset to 1 when a new patch comes along, > a number of packages I have use pre-release or otherwise weird versioning.) OK, that's fine, so long as you are aware of that and ensure that upgrade paths are always maintained. (Also please make a note of this situation in the spec file near the version number so that other provenpackager maintainers who may need to fix the package from time to time). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475322] Review Request: genus2reduction - Computes Reductions of Genus 2 Proper Smooth Curves
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475322 Alex Lancaster changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Alex Lancaster 2009-03-13 05:05:08 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > Sorry, the SRPM is: > http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/genus2reduction-0.3-3.fc10.src.rpm > Looks good, and legal has approved, so I'm marking this as: APPROVED. Only please fix the License tag to be "GPLv2" not "GPLv2+" as noted by spot in comment #6 before checking in the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 #11 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-13 05:09:54 EDT --- gnubik-2.3-5.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnubik-2.3-5.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 #12 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-13 05:10:26 EDT --- gnubik-2.3-5.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnubik-2.3-5.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487527] Review Request: watchdog - Software and/or Hardware watchdog daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487527 --- Comment #12 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-13 05:31:42 EDT --- Thanks - I asked the question on fedora-packaging list. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487665] Review Request: soud - Tools for hardware related services based on udev events
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487665 Marcela Maslanova changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review+, fedora-cvs+ |fedora-review-, fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Marcela Maslanova 2009-03-13 05:40:06 EDT --- Hello Dennis, so at the end we decided not to push this package and rather write patches for programmes. Could you remove it this branch from cvs? Then we can close this bug as wontfix. Thank you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487527] Review Request: watchdog - Software and/or Hardware watchdog daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487527 --- Comment #13 from Marcela Maslanova 2009-03-13 05:34:06 EDT --- I'm sorry, I've already resent your email from fedora-devel to fedora-packaging :( But anyway you can add it to cvs and then patch it, if they change 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 487527] Review Request: watchdog - Software and/or Hardware watchdog daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487527 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #15 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-13 06:08:18 EDT --- OK we're all done now. Thanks Marcela for the review and Kevin for the CVS work. I removed the "cleanup-nfs" patch. It looks very dubious to me. I can't see how it would do anything except break NFS support. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487527] Review Request: watchdog - Software and/or Hardware watchdog daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487527 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-13 05:56:53 EDT --- watchdog-5.5-2.fc10.1 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/watchdog-5.5-2.fc10.1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #9 from Lucian Langa 2009-03-13 05:43:59 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > 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. Updated to 2.25. > 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 Fixed. > 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.) Well actually some of the files from that directory are used, the README file in that directory is outdated. I am also trying to send a patch upstream that enables lookup files from that directory as a fallback. > The desktop file has an error: > key "Categories" is a list and does not have a semicolon as trailing > character, fixing Fixed. > 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. it shouldn't happen and it seems I cannot reproduce this. there is an initial configuration dialog that asks among other things for callsign and WWL (world wide locator). It is possible that this field is not correctly validated. I wonder if this happens after update, could you send me the generated file ~/tucnac/tucnakrc? new version: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/tucnak2.spec http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/tucnak2-2.25-1.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458826] Review Request: s390utils - Linux/390 specific utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458826 --- Comment #7 from Dan Horák 2009-03-13 06:23:00 EDT --- Updated Spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/s390/s390utils.spec Updated SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/s390/s390utils-1.8.0-4.el5.src.rpm ChangeLog: - update to 1.8.0 - cleanup for Fedora compliance - removed setting of LD_LIBRARY_PATH in the src_vipa.sh script, even the author didn't remember why it was there, but it was probably related multilib Koji scratch build: https://s390.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=433 commented rpmlint output: s390utils-base.s390x: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/s390.sh s390utils-base.s390x: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/s390.csh => no problem s390utils-base.s390x: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/src_vipa.so => no soname is passed to the linker, it is a preload-only library s390utils-base.s390x: W: incoherent-init-script-name dumpconf s390utils-cpuplugd.s390x: W: incoherent-init-script-name cpuplugd s390utils-mon_statd.s390x: W: incoherent-init-script-name mon_statd => result of using variable for service name in the scripts s390utils-libzfcphbaapi.s390x: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libzfcphbaapi.so.0.0.4 e...@glibc_2.2 => it is author's intention to call exit s390utils.s390x: E: devel-dependency s390utils-libzfcphbaapi-devel s390utils.s390x: E: no-binary => s390utils is a meta-package that installs all subpackages to simulate the old s390utils 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 478771] Review Request: spring-maps-default - Default maps for Spring
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478771 Alexey Torkhov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||atork...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Alexey Torkhov 2009-03-13 06:51:16 EDT --- - URLs in comments are wrong. - I checked one of the maps and there was no license. Why they are assumed to be GPLv2+? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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
Alexey Torkhov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|atork...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #19 from Alexey Torkhov 2009-03-13 06:53:43
EDT ---
I went forward and did the review. Here it is with few comments:
+ rpmlint output clean
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
+ The package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
That is providing, that it'll be changed to "CC-BY and Freely redistributable
without restriction".
+ File, containing the text of the licenses for the package is included in
%doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source.
Source command to export SVN is actually wrong. It should have either "-r 9"
or "@9" but not combination of those.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ No need to deal with locales.
+ The package does not designed to be relocatable.
+ A package owns all directories that it creates.
+ A package does not list a file more than once in %files listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
+ Package consistently uses macros.
+ Does not contain large documentation files.
+ Includes only doc files in %doc.
+ Includes %{name}.desktop file. Properly installed with desktop-file-install.
+ Package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
+ Package builds in mock.
+ Package functions as described.
Unfortunately, upstream's make system is made in such way so it doesn't
support paralleling - it compresses one file per time. Perhaps, this
should be addressed upstream.
This package is APPROVED.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489294] Review Request: icc_examin - ICC profile viewer and color visualization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489294 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 #5 from Marcela Maslanova 2009-03-13 07:55:28 EDT --- You've probably got all of them. I'm sorry but I'm still unsure about those files: trf2.1.3/compat/stdlib.h trf2.1.3/compat/tcl*.c They are speaking about some license.terms, which are not there. Could be tcl* files under tcl license? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489850] Review Request: perl-Apache-Htpasswd - Manage Unix crypt-style password file
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489850 --- Comment #4 from Xavier Bachelot 2009-03-13 08:03:12 EDT --- Build for Rawhide, F-10, F-9, EL-5 and EL-4. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 --- Comment #9 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-03-13 08:19:16 EDT --- Okay, got a reply from upstream: latex2html is the package that provides html.sty. Make check works now. http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/latex2rtf.spec http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/latex2rtf-1.9.19-4.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 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 #13 from Jan Zeleny 2009-03-13 08:30:03 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 Tried it with rpmlint myself this time (with no output), so hopefully it's ok 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 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 Paul W. Frields changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sticks...@gmail.com, ||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #57 from Paul W. Frields 2009-03-13 08:32:13 EDT --- Thanks for trying Mike. Don't we have a precedent for this already? We have version numbers (of a sort) on compatibility libraries in Fedora, like "libsoup22" for instance, so we can carry multiple parallel versions. Can anyone clarify the difference between that situation and this? If someone wants to work on Fedora 11 release notes in Fedora 10, and be able to install them in parallel to see the results of their WIP, how would we accomplish that, without having some distinction in the name of the package? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453848] Review Request: globus-core - Globus Toolkit - Globus Core
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453848 Hans de Goede changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #12 from Hans de Goede 2009-03-13 09:08:22 EDT --- Full review done, looks good, so I'll approve when I'm ready to sponsor you. 2 small things you could change: 1) Put %doc directly under %files 2) Put: rm -rf autom4te.cache ./bootstrap Under %prep, that is where *most* people do autofoo regeneration. Neither are blockers though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #20 from Lubomir Rintel 2009-03-13 09:28:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19) > I went forward and did the review. Here it is with few comments: [...] > + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > That is providing, that it'll be changed to "CC-BY and Freely redistributable > without restriction". Will do, upon import. > Source command to export SVN is actually wrong. It should have either "-r 9" > or "@9" but not combination of those. Right. It should have been -r9 @9 (meaning revision 9 of what was at this patch in revision 9). > Unfortunately, upstream's make system is made in such way so it doesn't > support paralleling - it compresses one file per time. Perhaps, this > should be addressed upstream. This would not be hard to fix, and I may eventually do that in future (either in make, or just modifying the python script to run number to threads equal to CPU cores). What would be tricky is compression of the png images into jpeg, because we only keep those, which are smaller than originals, therefore we decide whether a target is needed only after we've already remade it. > This package is APPROVED. Thanks a lot for review! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: yofrankie-bge Short Description: 3D Game with characters from Big Buck Bunny movie Owners: lkundrak Branches: F-10 EL-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 #6 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-03-13 09:28:56 EDT --- They are files from TCL, thus, under the TCL license. However, they're not used on Linux (we have stdlib.h so we never include compat/stdlib.h, and the compat/tcl* code is only used on windows or cross-compile environments). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453848] Review Request: globus-core - Globus Toolkit - Globus Core
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453848 --- Comment #13 from Hans de Goede 2009-03-13 09:36:20 EDT --- Ok, so I see now reviewing other globus packages that quite a few are for devel use only. I think that doing empty main packages for all those is a bad idea, in retrospect it was a bad idea for this one too. It seemed like a clever trick, but it contradicts Fedora's normal way of handling this, which is if a package has only development use, its ok to have files which would normally be part of a -devel package in the main package. So please drop the "devel" from the %files list and remove the -devel subpackage, that will also yield a nice simplification (lines reduction) of the spec 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 453849] Review Request: globus-libtool - Globus Toolkit - Globus libtool package (virtual GPT glue 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=453849 Hans de Goede changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||hdego...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|hdego...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Hans de Goede 2009-03-13 09:36:46 EDT --- I've just done a full review, basicly the same issues as with globus-core: MUST FIX * Add s390x as 64 bit arch * Since this is for devel use only, drop the -devel subpackage and put all %files in main package * Document Source# origin I guess the same goes for a lot of the other globus-packages it would be good if you could do an update of those too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483853] Review Request: tcl-trf - Tcl extension providing "transformer" commands
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483853 Marcela Maslanova changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Marcela Maslanova 2009-03-13 09:39:44 EDT --- Ok, ACCEPT -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 #11 from Ray Van Dolson 2009-03-13 09:48:11 EDT --- Per legal list it is a bad idea to change the license on the code. :-) Figured as much. People seem interested in a new release however, so we'll try to get this moving along and I'll look into stripping out the zipfile routines. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490133] New: Review Request: mingw32-qwt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mingw32-qwt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490133 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-qwt Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-qwt.spec SRPM URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-qwt-5.1.1-4.fc11.src.rpm Description: MinGW qwt library. qwt contains plot widgets for Qt. Approved MinGW packaging guidelines are here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490132] New: Review Request: mingw32-qt - Qt library for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mingw32-qt - Qt library for MinGW https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490132 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-qt - Qt library for MinGW Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-qt.spec SRPM URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-qt-4.5.0-2.fc11.src.rpm Description: MinGW Qt library. Approved MinGW packaging guidelines are here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW See also the discussion on the mingw mailing list: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/fedora-mingw/2009-March/000798.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454010] Review Request: iaxclient - Library for creating telephony solutions that interoperate with Asterisk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454010 Deji Akingunola changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #8 from Deji Akingunola 2009-03-13 09:57:39 EDT --- I can't download the *src.rpm file, I'm receiving '404 Not Found' error. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483451] Review Request: k3guitune - Musical instrument tuner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483451 David Timms changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454010] Review Request: iaxclient - Library for creating telephony solutions that interoperate with Asterisk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454010 --- Comment #9 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-03-13 10:00:20 EDT --- http://auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/coccinella/iaxclient-2.1-0.3.beta3.fc11.src.rpm is the correct link, sorry. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #8 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-03-13 10:01:09 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: tcl-trf Short Description: Tcl extension providing transformer commands Owners: spot Branches: F-9 F-10 devel InitialCC: ... and it's done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483451] Review Request: k3guitune - Musical instrument tuner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483451 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-13 10:07:58 EDT --- k3guitune-1.01-4.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/k3guitune-1.01-4.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 483451] Review Request: k3guitune - Musical instrument tuner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483451 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-13 10:08:04 EDT --- k3guitune-1.01-4.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/k3guitune-1.01-4.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483543] Review Request: systemtapguiserver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483543 --- Comment #11 from Anithra 2009-03-13 10:11:02 EDT --- Updated spec and src rpm: Spec URL: http://nchc.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/stapgui/systemtapguiserver.spec SRPM URL: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/stapgui/systemtapguiserver-1.0-5.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 273701] Review Request: gnome-main-menu - Gnome Main Menu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=273701 --- Comment #69 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2009-03-13 10:15:55 EDT --- Looking at fedora-main-menu.patch, I found some odd hunks: - + - + - + - + + + http://freedesktop.org";> + + + rank-4 + + + + + + + + + + http://freedesktop.org";> + + + rank-5 + + + + + + + + - + - + Would you care to explain these changes? Especially those introducing links to proprietary apps in /opt. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490140] New: Review Request: zsync - Client-side implementation of the rsync algorithm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: zsync - Client-side implementation of the rsync algorithm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490140 Summary: Review Request: zsync - Client-side implementation of the rsync algorithm 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/zsync-0.6/zsync.spec SRPM URL: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/zsync-0.6/zsync-0.6-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Zsync is a file transfer program to download files from remote web servers. If a previous version of a file is available locally, zsync will only download changed parts and hereby minimise the download volume. The algorithm is the same as used by rsync, but zsync does not require any server software (apart from a web server), nor does it need shell access. Instead, it uses a control file (.zsync file) that describes the file to be downloaded, which it uses to determine the blocks to fetch. This file is created once on the server (and not for each request) and sits next to actual file to download RPMLINT: 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 490132] Review Request: mingw32-qt - Qt library for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490132 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-mi...@lists.fedorapr ||oject.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490133] Review Request: mingw32-qwt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490133 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-mi...@lists.fedorapr ||oject.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 463140] Review Request: dfu-util - USB Device Firmware Update 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=463140 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-13 10:39:33 EDT --- dfu-util-0.1-0.8.20090307svn4917.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dfu-util-0.1-0.8.20090307svn4917.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 478617] Review Request: zsync - Partial/differential file transfer client over HTTP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478617 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cassmod...@fedoraproject.or ||g --- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-03-13 10:42:53 EDT --- *** Bug 490140 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490140] Review Request: zsync - Client-side implementation of the rsync algorithm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490140 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-03-13 10:42:53 EDT --- A review request already exists for this package. Closing as duplicate. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 478617 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475017] Review Request: l2fprod-common - In JavaSE missing Swing components, inspired from modern user interfaces
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475017 --- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-03-13 10:50:10 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) > The license has not yet changed in the distributed package from upstream, so I > won't change this here (nothing new from upstream) - or shall I go for the > CVS? > Still not sure if all licenses were corrected there, though. I want to see if the license is changed in the latest CVS. If so you can use CVS source for this 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 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 #10 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-13 10:54:35 EDT --- tcl-trf-2.1.3-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tcl-trf-2.1.3-2.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475471] Review Request: poi - Java API to Access Microsoft Format Files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475471 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG Flag|needinfo?(r...@fedoraproject | |.org) | --- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-03-13 10:54:53 EDT --- Okay, thank you for the reply anyway. Now I once close this bug so that someone else can pick up this review request. If you have some time again to work with this package, please feel free to open a new review request for this 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 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 #9 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-13 10:54:29 EDT --- tcl-trf-2.1.3-2.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tcl-trf-2.1.3-2.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475471] Review Request: poi - Java API to Access Microsoft Format Files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475471 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483403] Review Request: gdesklets-citation - A collection of quotes in French for gdesklets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483403 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #22 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-03-13 11:02:09 EDT --- Okay. - This package (gdesklets-citation) is APPROVED by mtasaka - -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490132] Review Request: mingw32-qt - Qt library for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490132
Kevin Kofler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org
--- Comment #1 from Kevin Kofler 2009-03-13 11:13:28
EDT ---
> #BuildRequires: qt-devel = %{version} Stupid, can't write this ...
Use:
BuildRequires: qt4-devel = %{version}
Otherwise, you'd have to add the Epoch, i.e.:
BuildRequires: qt-devel = 1:%{version}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489614] Review Request: perl-Authen-Krb5-Admin - Perl extension for MIT Kerberos 5 admin interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489614 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com Blocks|182235(FE-Legal)| --- Comment #5 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-03-13 11:23:52 EDT --- Well, we're not using Artistic, only GPL. We only list Artistic for historical reasons, at this point. There aren't any compatibility issues. Either: License: GPL+ or License: MIT and BSD and (GPL+ or Artistic) would be correct here. Up to the packager. 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 490132] Review Request: mingw32-qt - Qt library for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490132
--- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-13 11:22:39
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> > #BuildRequires: qt-devel = %{version} Stupid, can't write this ...
>
> Use:
> BuildRequires: qt4-devel = %{version}
>
> Otherwise, you'd have to add the Epoch, i.e.:
> BuildRequires: qt-devel = 1:%{version}
No the problem is we want to buildrequire the same version
of Fedora's native Qt package, but any release. The reason
is that we want to use the natively compiled 'moc' program.
However 'moc' only works with a matching version of Qt
(eg. all Qt 4.5.0 or whatever).
Now we cannot BuildRequire a specific version-release of
qt-devel (or qt4-devel) because this comes from a different
package, so we would constantly have to chase the native
Fedora package every time they did a new release.
What we want to do is to BR "%{version}-*", but AFAIK there
is no way to do this in RPM.
$ rpm -q --provides qt-devel | grep qt4-devel
qt4-devel = 4.4.3-10.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 490132] Review Request: mingw32-qt - Qt library for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490132 --- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-13 11:24:16 EDT --- One way to solve this would be if the qt-devel package could add an explicit provides, like: Provides: qt(api) = 4.5.0 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490152] New: Review Request: links - lightweight www browser with x11 interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: links - lightweight www browser with x11 interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490152 Summary: Review Request: links - lightweight www browser with x11 interface Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jchad...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.benhur.prf.cuni.cz/medved-7/wydobitki/?path=fedora/links.spec SRPM URL: http://www.benhur.prf.cuni.cz/medved-7/wydobitki/?path=fedora/links-2.2-1.fc11.i386.rpm Description: Links is lightweight www browser running in both text and graphic modes, supportng HTML 4.0 HTTP 1.1 Jawascript and much more. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490132] Review Request: mingw32-qt - Qt library for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490132
--- Comment #4 from Kevin Kofler 2009-03-13 11:38:28
EDT ---
= %{version} does exactly that, it matches the version no matter what the
%{release} is. The reason it did not work for you is because of the Epoch.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485596] Review Request: phoronix-test-suite - A Comprehensive Linux Benchmarking System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485596 --- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-03-13 11:43:12 EDT --- Well, typically the package should Require: everything it needs to operate as packaged by the maintainer. So, I would say if it needs those things it should require them, so a simple yum install will install them too. It's not good to install something, run it and have it ask you to install more items. ;) So, yes, I would personally say you should re-add those. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490152] Review Request: links - lightweight www browser with x11 interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490152 Stepan Kasal changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ska...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Stepan Kasal 2009-03-13 11:48:12 EDT --- The above links are broken, the following use either: http://www.benhur.prf.cuni.cz/medved-7/wydobitki/fedora/links.spec and http://www.benhur.prf.cuni.cz/medved-7/wydobitki/fedora/links-2.2-1.fc11.i386.rpm or: http://www.benhur.prf.cuni.cz/medved-7/wydobitki/?path=fedora/ A quick note: your description here seems to be much better than the one in the spec file, for severalk reasons: The %description in spec file contains details about portability, which is not relevant for Fedora users; they are using the built binary, on Linux, with X11 for graphics, etc. These details belong to the README file copied to %doc (where they probably already are). OTOH, the %description does not mention Javascipt support. And a two line description is always better than 16 line 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 490152] Review Request: links - lightweight www browser with x11 interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490152 --- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-13 11:50:30 EDT --- Isn't this a duplicate of bug 470703? I didn't build the package, but will this avoid conflicting with the existing /usr/bin/links? The other package calls it links2, I believe. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489633] Review Request: mingw32-physfs - MinGW Windows port of the PhysicsFS 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=489633 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-mi...@lists.fedorapr ||oject.org, ||rjo...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489633] Review Request: mingw32-physfs - MinGW Windows port of the PhysicsFS 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=489633 --- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-13 11:54:55 EDT --- Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1240160 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489633] Review Request: mingw32-physfs - MinGW Windows port of the PhysicsFS 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=489633 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added 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 472144] Review Request: tvbrowser - Free EPG for over 500 stations.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472144 --- Comment #18 from Sandro Mathys 2009-03-13 12:02:54 EDT --- Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser.spec SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser-2.7.3-1.fc10.src.rpm New version - no other changes were needed to get this working. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481442] Review Request: clutter-perl - Perl bindings to the Clutter OpenGL canvas
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481442 --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-13 12:05:14 EDT --- Since this is a regular Perl module, hosted at CPAN, shouldn't it follow the normal Perl module naming guidelines? That would make it perl-Clutter. Also, I believe the URL should be http://search.cpan.org/dist/Clutter/. The non-capitalized one takes me to a search page. It might be good to contact upstream to see what the actual license of the package is. The README file says LGPLv2+; the Clutter man page says "LGPLv2+ or Artistic". The Clutter::TestHelper says "under the same terms as Clutter itself" and some other documents (Clutter::Cookbook, for example) just have a copyright notice with no license. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489633] Review Request: mingw32-physfs - MinGW Windows port of the PhysicsFS 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=489633
--- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-13 12:05:38
EDT ---
The %{_mingw32_configure} line needs to be moved down so it
is in the %build section.
Also you don't need %pre and %post, because ldconfig only cares
about native Fedora binaries, and won't know what to do with
*.DLLs. Just remove the %pre and %post sections completely.
I will continue the review assuming that you have done the above.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490061] Review Request: awesfx - Utility programs for AWE32/Emu10k1
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490061 --- Comment #1 from Guido Grazioli 2009-03-13 12:12:05 EDT --- Koji build is here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1240179 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 165553] Review Request: perl-Sort-Versions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=165553 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Paul Howarth 2009-03-13 12:14:35 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-Sort-Versions New Branches: EL-4 Owners: pghmcfc laxathom InitialCC: perl-sig Branch approved by corsepiu in private mail, EL-5 branch maintainer added as co-maintainer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489633] Review Request: mingw32-physfs - MinGW Windows port of the PhysicsFS 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=489633 --- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-13 12:18:32 EDT --- auto-buildrequires suggests the following extra BuildRequires lines: BuildRequires: mingw32-dlfcn BuildRequires: mingw32-readline BuildRequires: mingw32-zlib (A build might work without those, but configure might disable features if those packages aren't present. On the other hand, maybe those are false dependencies since auto-buildrequires isn't perfect). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489633] Review Request: mingw32-physfs - MinGW Windows port of the PhysicsFS 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=489633 --- Comment #4 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-13 12:20:48 EDT --- rpmlint output: mingw32-physfs.src:66: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-physfs.src:67: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-physfs.src:68: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-physfs.src:69: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-physfs.src:70: E: files-attr-not-set You are missing a %defattr line in the specfile mingw32-physfs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libphysfs.dll.a mingw32-physfs.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libphysfs.dll.a mingw32-physfs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/physfs.h mingw32-physfs.x86_64: W: binaryinfo-readelf-failed readelf: Error: Not an ELF file - it has the wrong magic bytes at the start mingw32-physfs.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr i686-pc-mingw32 You can ignore these, as per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW/Rpmlint -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489633] Review Request: mingw32-physfs - MinGW Windows port of the PhysicsFS 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=489633
--- Comment #5 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-13 12:30:04
EDT ---
- rpmlint output
see comment 4
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
- package should satisfy packaging guidelines
problems, see comment 2, comment 3, comment 4
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
zlib
+ license matches the actual package license
+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
? upstream sources match sources in the srpm
9bab1ed6383958b8bc7db792c6989b01 663342
(upstream website was being very slow - I will check this later)
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
? BuildRequires list all build dependencies
see comment 3
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
+ binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
this doesn't apply for mingw packages, see comment 2
+ does not use Prefix: /usr
+ package owns all directories it creates
+ no duplicate files in %files
- %defattr line
see comment 4
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a header files should be in -devel
doesn't apply to mingw packages
n/a static libraries should be in -static
could consider creating a -static subpackage, but not vital
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
n/a packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8
Optional:
n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock
+ the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
- review should test the package functions as described
n/a scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
n/a shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin
Please see comment 2, comment 3, comment 4.
Also why are we not building the latest upstream
version, which is 1.1.1?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490132] Review Request: mingw32-qt - Qt library for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490132 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-13 12:35:07 EDT --- Thanks Kevin, I didn't realize that. Taking for 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 490132] Review Request: mingw32-qt - Qt library for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490132
--- Comment #6 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-13 12:37:38
EDT ---
Probably a good idea to add:
Obsoletes: mingw32-qt-win <= 4.5.0
Provides: mingw32-qt-win = %{version}
otherwise people who are upgrading from the temporary
repository will get conflicts.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490152] Review Request: links - lightweight www browser with x11 interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490152 --- Comment #3 from Matej Cepl 2009-03-13 12:40:00 EDT --- First of all ... we need .src.rpm here, I don't care about binary rpm at all. Moreover http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~clock/twibright/links/download/links-2.2.tar.bz2 doesn't download. The correct URL of the source tarball seems to be http://links.twibright.com/download/links-2.2.tar.bz2 Will try with that when I get home. Don't fix it now, we will do it when more stuff is tested. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490152] Review Request: links - lightweight www browser with x11 interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490152 Matej Cepl changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mc...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490152] Review Request: links - lightweight www browser with x11 interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490152 --- Comment #4 from Matej Cepl 2009-03-13 12:43:31 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=335120) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=335120) modified spec file OK, as the bug stands it is unbuildable -- I don't have links-2.2-configure.patch 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 490133] Review Request: mingw32-qwt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490133 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||mingw32-qwt -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490133] Review Request: mingw32-qwt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490133 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||490132 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490132] Review Request: mingw32-qt - Qt library for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490132 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||490133 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454410] Review Request: mingw32-gcc - MinGW Windows cross-compiler (GCC) for C and 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=454410 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||490132(mingw32-qt) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490132] Review Request: mingw32-qt - Qt library for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490132 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||454410(mingw32-gcc) Alias||mingw32-qt -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490171] New: Review Request: mediawiki-semantic-forms - An extension to MediaWiki that adds support for web-based forms
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mediawiki-semantic-forms - An extension to MediaWiki that adds support for web-based forms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490171 Summary: Review Request: mediawiki-semantic-forms - An extension to MediaWiki that adds support for web-based forms Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jla...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://jlaska.fedorapeople.org/mediawiki-semantic/mediawiki-semantic-forms.spec SRPM URL: http://jlaska.fedorapeople.org/mediawiki-semantic/mediawiki-semantic-forms-1.5.4-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Semantic Forms is an extension to MediaWiki that allows users to add and edit data using forms. It is heavily tied in with the Semantic MediaWiki extension, and is meant to be used for structured data that has semantic markup. Having Semantic MediaWiki installed is a precondition for the Semantic Forms extension; the code will not fully work without it. Very simply, Semantic Forms allows you to have forms for adding and editing data on your wiki, without any programming. Forms can be created and edited not just by administrators, but by users themselves. Open questions: I'm unclear on how to license this package. The upstream code indicates it's GPL, but rpmlint (and the licensing guidelines indicate that "GPL" is not specific enough). Also, from the SemanticForms README file: * The Semantic Forms extension makes external calls to the Yahoo! User Interface (YUI) JavaScript library (http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/). YUI is distributed via the BSD license (http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/license.html), which is compatible with the GPL license under which Semantic Forms is distributed. * Semantic Forms also includes the Floatbox Javascript library by Byron McGregor (http://randomous.com/tools/floatbox/). Floatbox is distributed via the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which is compatible with the GPL license under which Semantic Forms is distributed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483364] Review Request: EekBoek - Bookkeeping software for small and medium-size businesses
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483364
Mamoru Tasaka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
--- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-03-13
13:07:40 EDT ---
Some random notes:
* Licensing
- First of all, from what file(s) can we judge that this
software is under Artistic 2.0?
* Requires/Provides
- What package provides "%{name}-db"? (are the rebuilt binary
rpms installable for you?)
- By the way, if you make -db-{sqlite,postgresql} subpackages
have "Provides: %{name}-db = %{version}", AFAIK
"yum install EekBoek" will always install EekBoek and
EekBoek-db-sqlite because yum usually gives higher priority
to shorter name.
Is this what you expect? Usually I don't recommend to add
the virtual Requires on the "main" package like this (because
with this yum will always choose one) and suggest to write
a note which tells that admins have to install either of
the packages providing database backends afterwards by
themselves.
* BuildRequires
- "BuildRequires: glibc-common" is redundant.
* Duplicate directories
- Since both database backend subpackages have "Requires: %name",
listing the following directories in the subpackages is
not needed. Just move to the main package.
---
%dir %{ebshare}
%dir %{ebshare}/lib
%dir %{ebshare}/lib/EB
%dir %{ebshare}/lib/EB/DB
---
* %changelog
- As it is useful when using Fedora CVS, I recommend to put
one line between %changlog entries like:
---
%changelog
* Fri Jan 30 2009 Johan Vromans - 1.04.02-1
- Adapt to Fedora guidelines
* Sun Jan 26 2009 Johan Vromans - 1.04.02
- Remove QUICKSTART.
* Sat Jul 19 2008 Johan Vromans - 1.03.90
- Remove debian stuff
- Don't use unstable.
---
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490132] Review Request: mingw32-qt - Qt library for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490132
--- Comment #7 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-13 13:09:59
EDT ---
Ouch this takes a long time to compile :-(
auto-buildrequires suggests that you have all the right
BuildRequires lines.
rpmlint says:
mingw32-qt.src:219: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package
%{_libdir}/qt4/mkspecs/fedora-win32-cross
This seems OK ...
mingw32-qt.src: W: strange-permission qt-win-configure.sh 0775
Fine, rpmlint shouldn't complain about these.
mingw32-qt.noarch: E: devel-dependency qt-devel
This is OK, because mingw32-qt is really a devel package.
However, see comment 1.
mingw32-qt.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQtSql4.a
mingw32-qt.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libqtmaind.a
mingw32-qt.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQtGuid4.a
mingw32-qt.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQt3Support4.a
mingw32-qt.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQtXmld4.a
mingw32-qt.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQtSvgd4.a
mingw32-qt.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQtXml4.a
mingw32-qt.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQtSqld4.a
mingw32-qt.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQtCore4.a
mingw32-qt.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQtNetwork4.a
mingw32-qt.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQtSvg4.a
mingw32-qt.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libqtmain.a
mingw32-qt.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQt3Supportd4.a
mingw32-qt.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQtNetworkd4.a
mingw32-qt.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQtCored4.a
mingw32-qt.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQtGui4.a
You can ignore these, see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW/Rpmlint#arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
mingw32-qt.noarch: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
This refers to the following files:
/usr/lib64/qt4/mkspecs/fedora-win32-cross/qmake.conf
/usr/lib64/qt4/mkspecs/fedora-win32-cross/qplatformdefs.h
and that seems 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 490132] Review Request: mingw32-qt - Qt library for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490132 --- Comment #8 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-13 13:12:02 EDT --- Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1240262 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490152] Review Request: links - lightweight www browser with x11 interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490152 --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-13 13:13:54 EDT --- Please address the question of duplication of bug 470703 before reviewing this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490132] Review Request: mingw32-qt - Qt library for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490132 --- Comment #10 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-13 13:21:23 EDT --- Please see comment 1 and comment 6 before committing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490132] Review Request: mingw32-qt - Qt library for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490132
Richard W.M. Jones changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-13 13:20:13
EDT ---
+ rpmlint output
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license
+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
i586 and x86_64
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun
+ does not use Prefix: /usr
+ package owns all directories it creates
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a header files should be in -devel
ok for mingw packages to have headers
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8
Optional:
n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock
? the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
+ review should test the package functions as described
n/a scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
n/a shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin
---
This package is APPROVED by rjones
---
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490132] Review Request: mingw32-qt - Qt library for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490132
--- Comment #11 from Kevin Kofler 2009-03-13 13:23:46
EDT ---
> mingw32-qt.src:219: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package
> %{_libdir}/qt4/mkspecs/fedora-win32-cross
>
> This seems OK ...
No, it's not. Noarch packages MUST NOT install to %{_libdir} as that expands to
something different depending on the arch it's built on. In addition, 64-bit
qmake will not find the mkspecs in /usr/lib, so even hardcoding it as /usr/lib
is wrong.
We used /usr/share/qt4/mkspecs in the native Qt at some point, but this was
changed because it causes other problems. So unless we can get the native Qt to
look there as well, this package cannot be noarch.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490133] Review Request: mingw32-qwt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490133 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-13 13:29:28 EDT --- Taking for 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 453422] Review Request: songbird - Mozilla based multimedia player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453422 --- Comment #31 from David Halik 2009-03-13 13:36:14 EDT --- Here is the latest spec and srpm built against F11. There are a few open Linux bugs there are affecting the 1.1.1 release, but the build part of the equation has been worked out successfully. http://rpm.rutgers.edu/fedora/songbird.spec http://rpm.rutgers.edu/fedora/songbird-1.1.1-1.fc11.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 487874] Review Request: fcode-utils - Utilities for dealing with FCode
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487874 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 2009-03-13 13:40:12 EDT --- Could you indicate, with a comment in the spec, which files are under which license? See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios That's the only issue I see; you can fix it up when you import the package. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 7c135077a51bb843eb435f9d8c3447e9d632037d033c8836f7853cf2044873b4 fcode-utils-1.0.2.zip * 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 (at least the GPL text is; the CPL text doesn't seem to be in the 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: fcode-utils = 1.0.2-2.fc11 fcode-utils(x86-64) = 1.0.2-2.fc11 = (none) * 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 * 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. APPROVED 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 490133] Review Request: mingw32-qwt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490133
--- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-13 13:41:38
EDT ---
Output of auto-buildrequires looks good.
rpmlint says:
mingw32-qwt.src:31: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep sed -i "s\LIBPATH\
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mingw32_libdir}\1" qwtconfig.pri
mingw32-qwt.src:32: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep sed -i "s\HEADERPATH\
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mingw32_includedir}/%{name1}\1" qwtconfig.pri
mingw32-qwt.src:33: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep sed -i "s\DOCKPATH\
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mingw32_docdir}/%{name1}\1" qwtconfig.pri
mingw32-qwt.src:34: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep #sed -i "s\QTDESIGNERPATH\
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_qt4_plugindir}/designer\1" designer/designer.pro
mingw32-qwt.src:35: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep sed -i "s\QTDESIGNERPATH\
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mingw32_libdir}/qt4/plugins/designer\1" designer/designer.pro
I don't really see a way to avoid this. Apparently
this will be a problem in the case of RPM "short circuiting"
but I have no idea what that is or if anyone uses it.
mingw32-qwt.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: line 4)
Be nice to fix this. Run the specfile through expand(1).
mingw32-qwt.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libqwt5.a
mingw32-qwt.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libqwtd5.a
These can be ignored.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490171] Review Request: mediawiki-semantic-forms - An extension to MediaWiki that adds support for web-based forms
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490171 --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-13 13:45:01 EDT --- GPL is indeed not specific enough; you need to indicate the version of the GPL in use. You need to look at the code for the license blocks which specify the GPL version. If those don't exist, the COPYING file is explicit: Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. so the license tag would be "GPL+". In this case, you should also communicate with upstream to get them to include proper license blocks in the code or to otherwise clarify their intent. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490152] Review Request: links - lightweight www browser with x11 interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490152 Matej Cepl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ova...@redhat.com --- Comment #7 from Matej Cepl 2009-03-13 13:50:40 EDT --- For now, putting the maintainer of elinks on CC list of this bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490152] Review Request: links - lightweight www browser with x11 interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490152 --- Comment #6 from Matej Cepl 2009-03-13 13:49:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > Please address the question of duplication of bug 470703 before reviewing > this. Yes, I know about the issue ... our current provider of /usr/bin/links is elinks (http://elinks.or.cz/) and it is a fork of this project, which later evolved into more featured browser (with Javascript, X11 support, etc.). I would suggest, that for now, this package would generate /usr/bin/links2, and we should also file a bug against elinks to rename its binary to /usr/bin/elinks. Then these two packages could Conflict each other and using update-alternates share /usr/bin/links symlink. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490133] Review Request: mingw32-qwt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490133
Richard W.M. Jones changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-13 13:52:00
EDT ---
+ rpmlint output
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license
+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
- upstream sources match sources in the srpm
218cef1a39ebda6cfa440a0727464275 1686166
Source URL is incorrect. It should be:
Source: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name1}/%{name1}-%{version}.tar.bz2
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
x86_64
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun
n/a does not use Prefix: /usr
+ package owns all directories it creates
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8
Optional:
n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
- reviewer should build the package in mock
? the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
? review should test the package functions as described
n/a scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin
Why are these lines commented out?
#%{_qt4_plugindir}/designer/libqwt_designer_plugin.so
#%{_mingw32_libdir}/qt4/plugins/designer/libqwt_designer_plugin.so
I will approve this package. Before uploading, please
fix the Source line.
Package APPROVED by rjones.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490132] Review Request: mingw32-qt - Qt library for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490132 --- Comment #12 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-13 13:55:03 EDT --- What was the problem that stopped Qt using /usr/share? It sounds like a bug in the base Qt package TBH. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
