[Bug 487901] Review Request: zikula - web-based CMS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487901 --- Comment #8 from David Nalley 2009-03-14 00:56:55 EDT --- The semanage stuff in %pre had some problems and wouldn't always exit 0. Please find : Spec URL: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/zikula.spec SRPM URL: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/zikula-1.1.1-12.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 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 #70 from Jeffrey Goh 2009-03-14 00:53:48 EDT --- oops. those look almost like they came off of my home desktop environment ... which I made the same as my work desktop, which is SLED. Let me go see what apps make sense for a default "clean" Fedora environment. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489564] Review Request: Blueman - Bluetooth Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489564 Rajeesh changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rajeeshknamb...@gmail.com --- Comment #11 from Rajeesh 2009-03-14 00:19:18 EDT --- A few comments: I do not find dbus-python-devel a BuildRequires either. Anyway. It is better to use the patch mentioned in upstream to fix the build issue, which is here: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23437278/blueman-pytgtk-check.patch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 --- Comment #18 from Ralf Corsepius 2009-03-14 00:16:04 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17) > > I do not see why this would be bad here and ok with gcc? > > tinycc-devel.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > > Well, rpm -ql gcc and look at what gcc puts into /usr/lib/gcc (even on x86_64, > interestingly). All sorts of object files and libraries, along with some > headers. These are GCC internal files and in fact are host-arch-independent from GCC's POV (compile-time demands). The reasons they are in /usr/lib/gcc instead of /usr/share are widely historic (/usr/lib/ predates invention of /usr/share) and related to run-time demands (/usr/lib/gcc//... may contain run-time-used shared libs). > Look at what this package puts into /usr/lib/tcc: Some header files. IMO, this begs for more questions: * Is /usr/lib/libtcc.a located correctly? Should it be a generally applicable library (e.g. usable by GCC compiled files) then this location is likely correct. * Is /usr/include/libtcc.h located correctly? I doubt it. IMO, it should be a tcc internal header, tcc should implicitly pull in interally from some internal include file search path. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 167525] Review Request: cpptasks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=167525 D Haley changed: What|Removed |Added CC||my...@yahoo.com --- Comment #5 from D Haley 2009-03-13 23:06:55 EDT --- Spec URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/cpptasks.spec SRPM URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/cpptasks-1.0b5-1.fc10.src.rpm rpmlint output: $ rpmlint cpptasks.spec ../SRPMS/cpptasks-1.0b5-1.fc10.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/cpptasks-1.0b5-1.fc10.noarch.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/cpptasks-javadoc-1.0b5-1.fc10.noarch.rpm 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. koji scratch builds: F10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1241040 F9: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1241048 Changelog: * Sat Mar 14 2009 D Haley - 1.0b5-1 - Update to b5 - cpptasks now uses difficult mvn-doxia xdoc, so remove manual subpackage - Add distribution jar check - EOL conversion on NOTICE - Change summary & format description - Fix BuildRoot - Change licence to ASL 2.0 from Apache Software Licence 2.0 Comments/issues: I have removed the manual sub-package, as the project now uses maven-doxia. I tried to get this to build, but even with upgrading my commons-cli to testing (bug 453018) and modifying their POM, I was unable to get mvn-jpp to actually build the "site" target (lifecycle phase, whatever). I don't see this as totally detrimental as you can access their documentation on their website anyway, all the "site" target does is rebuild that as a local copy. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488618] Review Request: Likewise Open - Likewise Active Directory Authentication Services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488618 Itamar Reis Peixoto changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(krish...@likewise ||.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 488618] Review Request: Likewise Open - Likewise Active Directory Authentication Services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488618
Xavier Bachelot changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xav...@bachelot.org
--- Comment #4 from Xavier Bachelot 2009-03-13 21:37:18
EDT ---
You need to provide a direct link to both the srpm and the spec file.
Currently, one have to go to the url then look for the srpm. The spec file is
not available at all and one need to download the 47 MB srpm to look at the
spec.
Preliminary comments :
- License tag is not valid.
- Release is not using the disttag.
- BuildRoot is not valid.
- Source0 and Source999 need to be a full URL.
- Spec file uses both spaces and tabs for indenting.
- The first half of the following line in %%build section is not needed :
[ "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" != "/" ] && rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- Same as above for %%clean section.
- File attributes are not set. Add the following line at the top of all the
packages sections :
%defattr (-,root,root-)
- %{_libdir}/likewise is not owned by any of the packages.
- Config files are not marked as such use %config and %config(noreplace) where
appropriate.
- %{_sysconfdir}/likewise is not owned.
- {_bindir}/demo is not owned.
- {_prefix}/share should be {_datadir}.
- /var should be {_localstatedir}
- %{_prefix}/bin should be %{_bindir}.
- %{_prefix}/data is not a standard dir and should not be created at all.
- No version-release for the changelog entries.
- No documentation included.
- No license file included.
- Services are provided but initscripts is not in the Requires: list nor are
the proper %%pre, %preun, etc... scriptlet used.
- You can use sed -i rather than sed then move, this will make the spec easier
to read.
- The build should probably not temper with the RPM_OPT_FLAGS and CFLAGS.
- The whole %%build and %%install sctions look fishy.
- Doesn't build in mock, needs at least to BuildRequires: openldap-devel,
krb5-devel but even with that, build still fails.
The list above is nowhere near complete, this package needs a lot of work.
Please carefully read the packaging guidelines to fix all of the above. You
should also run rpmlint on all the rpms and srpm.
Also, not directly related to the review, one need to register to receive a
link to the download page
(http://www.likewise.com/community/index.php/download/). It seems there's no
tarball to download but rather a lot of different tarballs. This is
confusing...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488563] Review Request: pure - The Pure programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488563 --- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim 2009-03-13 21:22:59 EDT --- Ah yes, of course, I need to BR: llvm-devel as well. Will post an updated spec soon; I did the original packaging before the fixed llvm 2.4 (and Rawhide's llvm 2.5) landed so could not use Koji. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488100] Firebird SQL database management 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=488100 --- Comment #13 from MERCIER 2009-03-13 20:37:53 EDT --- hi! a little problem! spec file: http://bioinformatiques.free.fr/firebird.spec Code: __ $ rpmbuild -ba firebird.spec ... ... Traitement des fichiers: firebird-libfbembed2-2.1.2.18116.0-3.fc10 erreur: Fichier non trouvé par la substitution: /home/builder/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/firebird-2.1.2.18116.0-3.fc10.x86_64/usr/lib64/firebird/lib/libicudata.so.* erreur: Fichier non trouvé par la substitution: /home/builder/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/firebird-2.1.2.18116.0-3.fc10.x86_64/usr/lib64/firebird/lib/libicui18n.so.* erreur: Fichier non trouvé par la substitution: /home/builder/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/firebird-2.1.2.18116.0-3.fc10.x86_64/usr/lib64/firebird/lib/libicuuc.so.* Erreur de construction de RPM: Fichier non trouvé par la substitution: /home/builder/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/firebird-2.1.2.18116.0-3.fc10.x86_64/usr/lib64/firebird/lib/libicudata.so.* Fichier non trouvé par la substitution: /home/builder/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/firebird-2.1.2.18116.0-3.fc10.x86_64/usr/lib64/firebird/lib/libicui18n.so.* Fichier non trouvé par la substitution: /home/builder/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/firebird-2.1.2.18116.0-3.fc10.x86_64/usr/lib64/firebird/lib/libicuuc.so.* -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483025] Review Request: imms - Adaptive playlist framework tracking and adapting to your listening patterns
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483025 --- Comment #7 from Milos Jakubicek 2009-03-13 20:38:48 EDT --- Ops, forgot to BR prelink after adding the execstack call, sorry. New SPEC: http://mjakubicek.fedorapeople.org/imms/imms.spec New SRPM: http://mjakubicek.fedorapeople.org/imms/imms-3.1.0-0.5.rc8.fc10.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1240946 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468229] Review Request: python-wsgiref - WSGI (PEP 333) Reference 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=468229 Sergio Pascual changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||sergio.pa...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sergio.pa...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470354] Review Request: noip - A dynamic DNS update client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470354 --- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-03-13 20:09:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > noip.x86_64: E: zero-length /etc/no-ip2.conf > Can this file accept any comments? Is there any way to put any initial > content > there? It's not generally a good idea to ship empty but significant files. Nope, it's a binary file :) > A little bit of indenting might make the %pre script clearer; it looks like > the > wiki sample of this got damaged somehow. Done. Also modfied the init file, now # service noip status and # service noip stop work as they should. http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/noip.spec http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/noip-2.1.9-3.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483498] Review Request: earth-and-moon-backgrounds - Modern background
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483498 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-13 19:57:16 EDT --- earth-and-moon-backgrounds-0.1-4.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/earth-and-moon-backgrounds-0.1-4.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 483498] Review Request: earth-and-moon-backgrounds - Modern background
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483498 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-13 19:54:40 EDT --- earth-and-moon-backgrounds-0.1-4.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/earth-and-moon-backgrounds-0.1-4.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 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 #5 from Conrad Meyer 2009-03-13 19:49:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > 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). It's a fairly common scheme for non-numeric versions and is specified specifically in the naming guidelines; I don't think this is needed. I'll try to get around to the other things soon, but I have finals in the next couple days. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476350] Review Request: python-networkx - Creates and Manipulates Graphs and Networks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476350 --- Comment #3 from Conrad Meyer 2009-03-13 19:45:38 EDT --- Fixed the licensing issues and added a %check section. http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/python-networkx.spec http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/python-networkx-0.99-2.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 426753] Review Request: xmonad - A tiling window manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426753 --- Comment #24 from Yaakov Nemoy 2009-03-13 19:40:18 EDT --- New update SPEC: http://ynemoy.fedorapeople.org/review/xmonad.spec SRPM: http://ynemoy.fedorapeople.org/review/xmonad-0.8.1-4.fc10.src.rpm Arguably, this package needs to be rebuilt everytime there's an update to X11, because of static compilation. Still, there is one use case for giving a more generic required version of ghc-X11, and that is the user who needs to recompile to an earlier version for what ever reason. Note that fileperms was fixed too. This is an issue that seems to be common to haskell things compiled in ghc, so we may want to fix this in the template. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488665] Review Request: hscolour - Haskell source code highlighter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488665 Yaakov Nemoy changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Yaakov Nemoy 2009-03-13 19:00:09 EDT --- Ok, URL is good. Waiving the warnings and error that can be waived for the obvious reasons. They were included only for completeness. I'm gonna let the executable-stack warning pass for now. This might bear some looking into. The other issues have been fixed, so this 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 426753] Review Request: xmonad - A tiling window manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426753 --- Comment #23 from Yaakov Nemoy 2009-03-13 18:59:54 EDT --- $ python >>> import this Explicit is better than implicit. Anyways, we need to include ghc-xmonad-devel because xmonad can and will recompile itself on the fly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490210] Review Request: moc - A ncurses-based audio player (This is my first package-sponsor needed!)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490210 Julian Aloofi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Comment #11 from Julian Aloofi 2009-03-13 18:58:42 EDT --- I wont be able to solve the problems I have with the package in the near future. I will go for something simple first. Sorry for this mess... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490210] Review Request: moc - A ncurses-based audio player (This is my first package-sponsor needed!)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490210 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|Reopened| Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470354] Review Request: noip - A dynamic DNS update client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470354 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 18:01:30 EDT --- rpmlint says: noip.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/noip noip noip.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/run/noip noip noip.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/noip 0700 noip.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /etc/no-ip2.conf noip noip.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/no-ip2.conf noip noip.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/noip 0700 noip.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/no-ip2.conf 0600 All of these are fine. noip.x86_64: E: zero-length /etc/no-ip2.conf Can this file accept any comments? Is there any way to put any initial content there? It's not generally a good idea to ship empty but significant files. noip.x86_64: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/noip $prog This is bogus; rpmlint doesn't understand when you put the service name in a variable. Unfortunately there's not much I can do besides verify that the client at least does something; I don't use no-ip.com services. A little bit of indenting might make the %pre script clearer; it looks like the wiki sample of this got damaged somehow. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 82b9bafab96a0c53b21aaef688bf70b3572e26217b5e2072bdb09da3c4a6f593 noip-duc-linux.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * 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. X rpmlint has a valid complaint. * final provides and requires are sane: config(noip) = 2.1.9-2.fc11 noip = 2.1.9-2.fc11 noip(x86-64) = 2.1.9-2.fc11 = /bin/sh chkconfig config(noip) = 2.1.9-2.fc11 initscripts shadow-utils * 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 * Init script looks OK. * scriptlets are OK (user creation in %pre, initscript setup in %post and %preun). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480103] Review Request: bnIRC - An ncurses based IRC client and modular IRC framework.(Need Sponsorship. First time Packager)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480103
--- Comment #10 from Michael Schwendt 2009-03-13
17:43:12 EDT ---
* The plugin loader evaluates the libtool .la files and dlopen()s the library
with the file name found in the "dlname=" parameter, e.g. libdcc.so.0, which in
turn is a symlink to libdcc.so.0.0.0
The statically linked plugins 'lib*.a' are not needed as they cannot be loaded
at run-time.
The plugin symlinks 'lib*.so' are not needed either.
The program could be patched to simply name the plugins 'lib*.so' and dlopen()
them directly instead of looking at the .la files.
* Please look at "rpm --query --provides bnIRC". Currently, the plugin
libraries produce several automatic SONAME Provides, which bear the risk of
causing conflicts with other packages during dependency resolving:
libctcp.so.0
libdcc.so.0
libdebug.so.0
libhello.so.0
libio_ncurses.so.0
libirc_input.so.0
libpython.so.0
librserver.so.0
libserver_strings.so.0
This is a blocker, even if one could show that no other Fedora package
currently provides libraries with the same SONAMEs. I haven't tried that, but I
could imagine packages such as "libdcc", "libctcp", "librserver", for example,
with similar library sonames.
The package also contains automatic "Requires" for the same library SONAMEs.
The least thing that could be done is to filter these self-Provides and
self-Requires out. Various docs exist, in the Wiki and on Google,
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FilteringAutomaticDependencies
but disabling rpmbuild's internal dependency generator is dangerous, and one
must carefully examine the results.
It would be good, if upstream could use a unique namespace for these plugins,
e.g. like libbnirc_plugin_foo.so.0
> %post devel -p /sbin/ldconfig
> %postun devel -p /sbin/ldconfig
These are a no-op and can be deleted. The scriptlets in the main pkg are the
ones that are correct and needed.
> %{_libdir}/bnIRC/*
Directory %{_libdir}/bnIRC is not included.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UnownedDirectories
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490210] Review Request: moc - A ncurses-based audio player (This is my first package-sponsor needed!)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490210 --- Comment #10 from Julian Aloofi 2009-03-13 17:45:39 EDT --- rpmlint on the binary file now reported some errors. I'll upload fixed versions of the SRPM and .spec file tomorrow. I can't do anything today. The links wont change. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474992] Review Request: libirman - Library for IRMAN hardware
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474992 --- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-13 17:40:21 EDT --- Would it be better to either wait for a newer release or to pull a snapshot from CVS? I have no way of objectively determining whether we would benefit from having a dynamic library here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474992] Review Request: libirman - Library for IRMAN hardware
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474992 --- Comment #9 from Tom Hughes 2009-03-13 17:31:30 EDT --- The reason it is static despite the switch is that the 0.4.4 release of libirman doesn't support shared builds at all. The current upstream CVS code does support shared builds and will respect the switch and produce shared objects. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467418] Review Request: mingw32-libvirt - MinGW Windows libvirt virtualization 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=467418
--- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim
2009-03-13 17:15:56 EDT ---
configure is testing for GLIB2:
checking for GLIB2... no
but this is probably a (minor) configure.in bug. It looks like GLIB2 is only
pulled in if building with DeviceKit support.
Review:
(-) rpmlint: source clean. binary: contains manpage, this should probably be
removed
mingw32-libvirt.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man1/virsh.1
(+) package name
(+) spec file name
(+) package meets guidelines for inclusion
(+) license meets guideline
(+) license field accurate
(-) license not deleted
COPYING.LIB is included, but COPYING is not
(+) spec language
(+) spec is legible
(+) source meets upstream
(+) package compiles (tested on rawhide i586)
(N/A) excludearch
(+) build deps complete
(+) %find_lang for locales
(N/A) ldconfig for shared libraries
(+) directory ownership
(+) file listing not duplicated
(+) permissions
(+) %clean
(+) macros consistent
(+) package contains code
(N/A) large docs in -doc
(N/A) -doc not needed at runtime
(N/A) headers in -devel (package is for development)
(N/A) static libs in -static
(+) .pc -> req pkgconfig (note: dir ownership provided by mingw32-filesystem)
(N/A) .so in -devel
(N/A) -devel req versioned base
(-) package contains .la archive:
%{_mingw32_libdir}/libvirt.la
(N/A) desktop file packaging
(+) not owning pre-owned files/dirs
(+) install clears buildroot
(+) filenames UTF-8
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC 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 #5 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-13 17:13:38 EDT --- perl-Apache-Htpasswd-1.8-2.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Apache-Htpasswd-1.8-2.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 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 #6 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-13 17:13:43 EDT --- perl-Apache-Htpasswd-1.8-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Apache-Htpasswd-1.8-2.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 490210] Review Request: moc - A ncurses-based audio player (This is my first package-sponsor needed!)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490210 --- Comment #9 from Julian Aloofi 2009-03-13 16:58:45 EDT --- Ah, thank you. And good night ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490217] Review Request: moc - MOC is a ncurses-based audio player(I need a sponsor, this is my first 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=490217 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-13 16:57:18 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 490210 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490215] Review Request: moc - MOC is a ncurses-based audio player(I need a sponsor, this is my first 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=490215 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-13 16:58:19 EDT --- Dude, once was enough. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 490210 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490210] Review Request: moc - A ncurses-based audio player (This is my first package-sponsor needed!)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490210 --- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-13 16:58:19 EDT --- *** Bug 490215 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 490210] Review Request: moc - A ncurses-based audio player (This is my first package-sponsor needed!)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490210 --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-13 16:57:18 EDT --- *** Bug 490217 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 490216] Review Request: moc - MOC is a ncurses-based audio player(I need a sponsor, this is my first 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=490216 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-13 16:56:42 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 490210 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490210] Review Request: moc - A ncurses-based audio player (This is my first package-sponsor needed!)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490210 --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-13 16:56:42 EDT --- *** Bug 490216 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 490215] New: Review Request: moc - MOC is a ncurses-based audio player(I need a sponsor, this is my first package)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: moc - MOC is a ncurses-based audio player(I need a sponsor, this is my first package) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490215 Summary: Review Request: moc - MOC is a ncurses-based audio player(I need a sponsor, this is my first package) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jul...@fedoraproject.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490210 SRPM URL: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490210 Description: MOC (Music On Console) is a powerful ncurses-based media player. It supports various media formats like Ogg Vorbis, FLAC and Musepack. The interface is similar to Midnight Commander's and it doesn't need playlists. Note:I need a sponsor for this. Note 2:There are no conflicts with moc from 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 490217] New: Review Request: moc - MOC is a ncurses-based audio player(I need a sponsor, this is my first package)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: moc - MOC is a ncurses-based audio player(I need a sponsor, this is my first package) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490217 Summary: Review Request: moc - MOC is a ncurses-based audio player(I need a sponsor, this is my first package) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jul...@fedoraproject.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490210 SRPM URL: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490210 Description: MOC (Music On Console) is a powerful ncurses-based media player. It supports various media formats like Ogg Vorbis, FLAC and Musepack. The interface is similar to Midnight Commander's and it doesn't need playlists. Note:I need a sponsor for this. Note 2:There are no conflicts with moc from 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 490216] New: Review Request: moc - MOC is a ncurses-based audio player(I need a sponsor, this is my first package)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: moc - MOC is a ncurses-based audio player(I need a sponsor, this is my first package) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490216 Summary: Review Request: moc - MOC is a ncurses-based audio player(I need a sponsor, this is my first package) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jul...@fedoraproject.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490210 SRPM URL: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490210 Description: MOC (Music On Console) is a powerful ncurses-based media player. It supports various media formats like Ogg Vorbis, FLAC and Musepack. The interface is similar to Midnight Commander's and it doesn't need playlists. Note:I need a sponsor for this. Note 2:There are no conflicts with moc from 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 490210] Review Request: moc - A ncurses-based audio player (This is my first package-sponsor needed!)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490210 --- Comment #5 from Bill Nottingham 2009-03-13 16:47:34 EDT --- Should be reopened 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 490210] Review Request: moc - A ncurses-based audio player (This is my first package-sponsor needed!)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490210 Bill Nottingham changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|NOTABUG | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490210] Review Request: moc - A ncurses-based audio player (This is my first package-sponsor needed!)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490210 --- Comment #4 from Julian Aloofi 2009-03-13 16:45:09 EDT --- OK, I'll just open another review request. Sorry for this mess. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490210] Review Request: moc - A ncurses-based audio player (This is my first package-sponsor needed!)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490210 Bill Nottingham changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488910] Review Request: bio2jack - A library for porting blocked io(OSS/ALSA) applications to jack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488910 --- Comment #8 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-03-13 16:42:15 EDT --- Sorry. I also want the F-9 branch for this. So: New Package CVS Request === Package Name: bio2jack Short Description: A library for porting blocked io(OSS/ALSA) applications to jack Owners: oget Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480103] Review Request: bnIRC - An ncurses based IRC client and modular IRC framework.(Need Sponsorship. First time Packager)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480103 --- Comment #9 from Tom Wisniewski 2009-03-13 16:40:36 EDT --- Alright, I made some changes based on the feedback and they're all available at the links below SPEC: http://dev.zerogin.com/bnIRC.spec RPM: http://dev.zerogin.com/bnIRC-1.1.1-6.fc10.i386.rpm SRPM: http://dev.zerogin.com/bnIRC-1.1.1-6.fc10.src.rpm DEVEL RPM: http://dev.zerogin.com/bnIRC-devel-1.1.1-6.fc10.i386.rpm eed9f0123b0695c63072eeeb37a66114 bnIRC-1.1.1-6.fc10.i386.rpm a836f791a84132e0cdc280ddf7ea8867 bnIRC-1.1.1-6.fc10.src.rpm 8f22430b1299a368a1ebc93ef75bbeb0 bnIRC-devel-1.1.1-6.fc10.i386.rpm Now that I added some of the libs to the main package I get warnings when I run rpmlint. Since they're plugins, they do belong in the main package like mentioned in the previous comment made by Michael Schwendt. Not sure if I need to do something differently to get rid of the warnings or if they can be left alone. Any and all comments are welcome. thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488910] Review Request: bio2jack - A library for porting blocked io(OSS/ALSA) applications to jack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488910 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-03-13 16:40:45 EDT --- Thanks a lot! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: bio2jack Short Description: A library for porting blocked io(OSS/ALSA) applications to jack Owners: oget Branches: F-10 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490210] Review Request: moc - A ncurses-based audio player (This is my first package-sponsor needed!)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490210 --- Comment #3 from Julian Aloofi 2009-03-13 16:33:59 EDT --- OK, moc doesn't have his own package. Sorry for the confusion. There are no conflicts with moc. I need a sponsor, by the way ;) I can't open the request again. Should I just open another review request or ask someone to open it again? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490210] Review Request: moc - A ncurses-based audio player (This is my first package-sponsor needed!)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490210 Julian Aloofi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Comment #2 from Julian Aloofi 2009-03-13 16:29:02 EDT --- I need a sponsor for this, because this is my first package. (In reply to comment #1) > Doesn't this clash with QT's meta object compiler (moc)? Wow, you were fast :) Upstream renamed the executable to mocp. Oh, now I see my mistake^^ Crap :) Well, I'll create a package like moc-player or sth. Thanks for the hint! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488563] Review Request: pure - The Pure programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488563 Bug 488563 depends on bug 455502, which changed state. Bug 455502 Summary: [PATCH] llvm interpreter needs -fPIC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455502 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ON_QA |CLOSED --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-13 16:25:38 EDT --- This fails to build for me; I get a really large number of errors. Instead of pasting them, I just did a quick scratch build which shows the problem well: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1240609 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490210] Review Request: moc - A ncurses-based audio player (This is my first package-sponsor needed!)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490210 Julian Aloofi changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: moc - A |Review Request: moc - A |ncurses-based audio player |ncurses-based audio player ||(This is my first ||package-sponsor needed!) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490210] Review Request: moc - A ncurses-based audio 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=490210 --- Comment #1 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2009-03-13 16:25:13 EDT --- Doesn't this clash with QT's meta object compiler (moc)? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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
--- Comment #11 from Christian Krause 2009-03-13 16:21:55
EDT ---
Thanks to all for the reviews and clarifications!
(In reply to comment #4)
> * In the build.log I see:
>checking for libk5crypto ... not found (using libcrypto)
> This is not found because we have this line in Makefile.PL
>my $KRB5_LIBDIR = "$PREFIX/lib";
> I think this line need to be patched or sed'ed to use the correct %{_lib}
Fixed. Package builds now without the missing lib message on both 64bit archs:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1240524
> ! BR: krb5-devel is unnecessary. openssl-devel will pull that up.
Removed.
> ? This package owns the same directories with the perl-Authen-Krb5 package. Is
> this intentional? Or should this package require perl-Authen-Krb5? I know that
> there is an exception rule for perl packages. I was wondering if this package
> makes use of that exception rule.
Yes, I think that the mentioned exception from
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#Directory_Ownership applies.
> ! Please make the description span the 80 columns.
Fixed.
> * Each package must consistently use macros. You should either use the "perl,
> make, chmod, ..." notation or "%{__perl}, %{__make}, %{__chmod}, ..."
> notation.
> A mixture is not desired.
Fixed.
Regarding the license I've chosen the 2nd option offered by spot.
The new packages are uploaded:
Spec URL: http://chkr.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Authen-Krb5-Admin.spec
SRPM URL:
http://chkr.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Authen-Krb5-Admin-0.11-2.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 490210] New: Review Request: moc - A ncurses-based audio player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: moc - A ncurses-based audio player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490210 Summary: Review Request: moc - A ncurses-based audio player Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jul...@fedoraproject.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://cid-53a9ed2d7d1331d9.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/.Public/moc.spec SRPM URL: http://cid-53a9ed2d7d1331d9.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/.Public/moc-2.4.4-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: MOC (Music On Console) is a powerful ncurses-based media player. It supports various media formats like Ogg Vorbis, FLAC and Musepack. The interface is similar to Midnight Commander's and it doesn't need playlists. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490204] Review Request: mingw32-qt-qmake - build environment for Qt for MinGW applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490204 --- Comment #7 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-13 16:18:26 EDT --- Normally you'd just put a license file there. I "wrote" this, but in fact I derived it from existing files in the Qt distribution, so the correct way to do this is to add the license file from Qt here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 MERCIER changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #23 from MERCIER 2009-03-13 16:21:14 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: gdesklets-citation Short Description: A collection of quotes in French for gdesklets Owners: bioinfornat...@gmail.com Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: bioinfornatics -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483025] Review Request: imms - Adaptive playlist framework tracking and adapting to your listening patterns
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483025 --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-13 16:20:13 EDT --- Unfortunately it fails to build for me: + execstack -c build/immsd build/immstool RPM build errors: /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TIGCLm: line 41: execstack: command not found error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TIGCLm (%install) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489676] Review Request: perl-XML-Simple-DTDReader - Simple XML file reading based on their DTDs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489676 --- Comment #2 from Xavier Bachelot 2009-03-13 16:21:39 EDT --- How embarrassing... I could have swear I've built it into mock. Fixed package : Spec URL: http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/perl-XML-Simple-DTDReader.spec SRPM URL: http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SRPMS/perl-XML-Simple-DTDReader-0.04-2.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 488910] Review Request: bio2jack - A library for porting blocked io(OSS/ALSA) applications to jack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488910 Christian Krause changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Christian Krause 2009-03-13 16:06:29 EDT --- I've checked the new package - there are only license related changes: - License is finally set to LGPLv2+ after the confirmation by the upstream author - misleading COPYING file is not packaged anymore Otherwise there are no changes. Since the only questionable issue was fixed: 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 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 #2 from James Laska 2009-03-13 16:06:20 EDT --- > so the license tag would be "GPL+". Thanks for the guidance. I've updated the .spec and src.rpm (same URL's as noted in comment#0). I'll reach out to upstream for clarification on which version of the GPL we must abide by. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490204] Review Request: mingw32-qt-qmake - build environment for Qt for MinGW applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490204 --- Comment #6 from Thomas Sailer 2009-03-13 16:06:25 EDT --- Thanks! Hm, what documentation would you expect? I'm having troubles coming up with reasonable documentation for this package... Or should I put an AUTHORS file in there containing RMW Jones? :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490204] Review Request: mingw32-qt-qmake - build environment for Qt for MinGW applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490204 Thomas Sailer changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Thomas Sailer 2009-03-13 16:05:00 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mingw32-qt-qmake Short Description: Qt for MinGW32 Build Environment Owners: sailer rjones Branches: 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 474992] Review Request: libirman - Library for IRMAN hardware
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474992 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti...@math.uh.edu Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-13 16:04:25 EDT --- Well, it's been a few weeks and nobody else has stepped in, so I'll review this even though I don't have the hardware. For a multiple license scenario like this, you need to indicate (usually by a comment in the spec) which parts of the package are under which license. I'm not sure which part of the main package might fall under the LGPL. I don't see anywhere in the code that a version of the GPL or LGPL is specified, which makes the situation complex. The LGPL parts end up as LGPLv2+ while GPL parts end up as GPL+, which when compiled together make the result GPLv2+. Ugh. I'm not sure why you call ldconfig; no dynamic libraries are installed by this package. Actually, you get a static lib even though you pass --disable-static. Any idea what's going on? * source files match upstream. sha256sum: b29d0858450c56fca97c03cb1032e3b469166d431bfa7327fa3183d31a9f64b2 libirman-0.4.4.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. ? unsure whether the license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none). * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: libirman-0.4.4-3.fc11.x86_64.rpm config(libirman) = 0.4.4-3.fc11 libirman = 0.4.4-3.fc11 libirman(x86-64) = 0.4.4-3.fc11 = /sbin/ldconfig config(libirman) = 0.4.4-3.fc11 libirman-devel-0.4.4-3.fc11.x86_64.rpm libirman-static = 0.4.4-3.fc11 libirman-devel = 0.4.4-3.fc11 libirman-devel(x86-64) = 0.4.4-3.fc11 = libirman = 0.4.4-3.fc11 * 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 X ldconfig scriptlets present, but I'm not sure why. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel package. * no pkgconfig files. * static libraries are present: No dynamic libs, so they can be in the -devel package. -static provide is there. * no libtool .la files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490204] Review Request: mingw32-qt-qmake - build environment for Qt for MinGW applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490204
Richard W.M. Jones changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-13 15:58:01
EDT ---
This is an extremely simple package which just installs
two %{SOURCE*} files into a specific location, as required
by the mingw32-qt.noarch package.
The package complies with Fedora packaging guidelines, and
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 467408] Review Request: mingw32-jasper - MinGW Windows Jasper 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=467408 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-13 15:59:37 EDT --- mingw32-jasper-1.900.1-8.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw32-jasper-1.900.1-8.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 490204] Review Request: mingw32-qt-qmake - build environment for Qt for MinGW applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490204 --- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-13 15:56:04 EDT --- rpmlint says: mingw32-qt-qmake.x86_64: W: no-documentation Consider adding %doc, although I won't disapprove the review for lack of this. mingw32-qt-qmake.x86_64: E: devel-dependency qt-devel This is OK. mingw32-qt-qmake.x86_64: E: no-binary Also OK. mingw32-qt-qmake.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Also OK (in this case). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490204] Review Request: mingw32-qt-qmake - build environment for Qt for MinGW applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490204 --- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-13 15:54:49 EDT --- auto-buildrequires looks OK: BuildRequires: binutils = 2.19.51.0.2.16.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: coreutils = 7.1.6.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: diffutils = 2.8.1.23.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: findutils = 1:4.4.0.2.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: grep = 2.5.3.4.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem = 49.3.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: sed = 4.1.5.12.fc11.x86_64 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Christian Krause changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Christian Krause 2009-03-13 15:51:41 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Authen-Krb5-Admin Short Description: Perl extension for MIT Kerberos 5 admin interface Owners: chkr Branches: F-9 F-10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490204] Review Request: mingw32-qt-qmake - build environment for Qt for MinGW applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490204 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-13 15:53:40 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 490204] Review Request: mingw32-qt-qmake - build environment for Qt for MinGW applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490204 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||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 490204] New: Review Request: mingw32-qt-qmake - build environment for Qt for MinGW applications
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-qmake - build environment for Qt for MinGW
applications
Alias: mingw32-qt-qmake
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490204
Summary: Review Request: mingw32-qt-qmake - build environment
for Qt for MinGW applications
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
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
Blocks: 490132
Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-qt-qmake.spec
SRPM URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-qt-qmake-4.5.0-1.fc11.src.rpm
Description:
MinGW Qt library Build Environment (qmake config).
Approved MinGW packaging guidelines are here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW
It has been suggested in bug #490132 that the qmake config files, which are
installed to %{_libdir}, should be factored out into a separate package, to
keep the huge mingw32-qt noarch. This is the factored-out 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 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 Thomas Sailer changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||490204(mingw32-qt-qmake) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488609] Review Request: python-ptrace - Debugger using ptrace written in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488609 Terje Røsten changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|RAWHIDE |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 #18 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-13 15:36:48 EDT --- Yes, I agree with Kevin. It costs almost nothing to add this, and makes the experience better for quite a lot of early adopters. There are many hundreds of silent people using the temporary yum repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 #17 from Kevin Kofler 2009-03-13 15:33:39 EDT --- IMHO: yes, definitely, especially in a case like this where a simple Obsoletes/Provides is all it takes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Levente Farkas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lfar...@lfarkas.org --- Comment #16 from Levente Farkas 2009-03-13 15:31:38 EDT --- as for #6 should we have to care about temp repos? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467413] Review Request: mingw32-fontconfig - MinGW Windows Fontconfig library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467413 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-13 15:26:56 EDT --- mingw32-fontconfig-2.6.0-9.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw32-fontconfig-2.6.0-9.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 467420] Review Request: mingw32-gtk2 - MinGW Windows Gtk2 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=467420 --- Comment #13 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-13 15:16:05 EDT --- I'm building them ... It's complicated by the fact that some of the dependencies don't build correctly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467418] Review Request: mingw32-libvirt - MinGW Windows libvirt virtualization 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=467418 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||michel.syl...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? Bug 467418 depends on bug 467414, which changed state. Bug 467414 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-gnutls - MinGW Windows GnuTLS TLS/SSL encryption library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467414 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim 2009-03-13 15:05:59 EDT --- Taking this review (hopefully portablexdr gets cleared up soon) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467420] Review Request: mingw32-gtk2 - MinGW Windows Gtk2 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=467420 --- Comment #12 from Michel Alexandre Salim 2009-03-13 15:05:13 EDT --- jasper and pango are now done, so this should probably get built soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478613] Review Request: ledger - A powerful command-line double-entry accounting 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=478613 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||michel.syl...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Michel Alexandre Salim 2009-03-13 14:53:51 EDT --- Some initial comments: - If packaging Emacs modes, you might want to consider making a separate subpackage that depends on emacs. See for instance how I handle it for vala: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/vala/vala.spec?revision=1.36 - chmod -x scripts/* should probably be done in %setup, not %build. It's not really part of the build process - There are some GCC 4.4 incompatibilities that will need to be fixed: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1240356 C++'s and functions now return a const char * if the input is const char *, and a char * if the input is char *. - You modified the .texi file, but do not BuildRequire: texinfo, so the documentation is not regenerated See F-10 build log: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1240369 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 --- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-13 14:46:37 EDT --- I don't see any macro inconsistency in the spec I'm looking at. I didn't see a build log error when I built this but perhaps I'm just missing it. There was no directory ownership issue that I saw; the rules for Perl module directory ownership are complex enough to get their own section in the guidelines. Was there something else you believe that I've missed? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486905] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Session-State-URI - Saves session IDs by rewriting URIs delivered to the client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486905 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-13 14:42:44 EDT --- perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Session-State-URI-0.08-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486905] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Session-State-URI - Saves session IDs by rewriting URIs delivered to the client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486905 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|0.08-2.fc9 |0.08-2.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 486904] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-I18N - I18N for Catalyst
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486904 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|0.08-2.fc10 |0.08-2.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 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 #14 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-13 14:39:02 EDT --- gnubik-2.3-5.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489130] Review Request: gnome-guitar - A small suite of applications for the guitarist
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489130 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-13 14:42:17 EDT --- gnome-guitar-0.8.1-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update gnome-guitar'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-2681 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||5.5-2.fc10.1 Resolution|RAWHIDE |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483331] Review Request: asterisk-sounds-core - Core sounds for Asterisk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483331 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||1.4.14-1.fc9 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 454008] Review Request: iax - Implementation of Inter-Asterisk eXchange protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454008 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|0.2.2-2.fc10|0.2.2-2.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 485621] Review Request: perl-Gtk2-MozEmbed - Interface to the Mozilla embedding widget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485621 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||0.08-3.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 485621] Review Request: perl-Gtk2-MozEmbed - Interface to the Mozilla embedding widget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485621 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-13 14:42:23 EDT --- perl-Gtk2-MozEmbed-0.08-3.fc10.1 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486904] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-I18N - I18N for Catalyst
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486904 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||0.08-2.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 483331] Review Request: asterisk-sounds-core - Core sounds for Asterisk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483331 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|1.4.14-1.fc9|1.4.14-1.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486904] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-I18N - I18N for Catalyst
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486904 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-13 14:42:34 EDT --- perl-Catalyst-Plugin-I18N-0.08-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454018] Review Request: tcl-tkpng - Tcl/Tk support for PNG
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454018 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|0.9-3.fc9 |0.9-3.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483331] Review Request: asterisk-sounds-core - Core sounds for Asterisk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483331 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-13 14:41:22 EDT --- asterisk-sounds-core-1.4.14-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454008] Review Request: iax - Implementation of Inter-Asterisk eXchange protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454008 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-13 14:39:21 EDT --- iax-0.2.2-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483331] Review Request: asterisk-sounds-core - Core sounds for Asterisk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483331 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-13 14:40:01 EDT --- asterisk-sounds-core-1.4.14-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454018] Review Request: tcl-tkpng - Tcl/Tk support for PNG
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454018 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-13 14:41:58 EDT --- tcl-tkpng-0.9-3.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||2.3-5.fc9 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
