[Bug 486804] Review Request: libferrisloki - customized build of Loki library from Modern C++ Design for libferris
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486804 Ricky Zhou changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490397] Review Request: compat-gmime - Library for creating and parsing MIME messages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490397
--- Comment #2 from Alex Lancaster 2009-03-16
03:16:04 EDT ---
Here are the main issues:
1. missing "Requires: pkgconfig"
2. probably should get some feedback from current gmime maintainer (although
not a 100% requirement, it would be better to get feedback)
Rest of full review:
+:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing, N/A:not applicable
MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
# rpmlint compat-gmime-*
compat-gmime-devel.i586: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
Given that this exists in the original gmime 2.2.x package, I think this can be
ignored for the moment as noted by comment #0
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
md5sum gmime-2.2.23.tar.bz2 rpmbuild/SOURCES/gmime-2.2.23.tar.bz2
9f254eb989e0506243da6fde7f164998 gmime-2.2.23.tar.bz2
9f254eb989e0506243da6fde7f164998 rpmbuild/SOURCES/gmime-2.2.23.tar.bz2
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
koji scratch build
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1242971
[] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[N/A] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro.
[+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
[N/A] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
[N/A] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[N/A] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[=] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
Appears to be missing "Requires: pkgconfig", see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PkgconfigFiles
[+] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[N/A] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items:
[+] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream
[Bug 490397] Review Request: compat-gmime - Library for creating and parsing MIME messages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490397 --- Comment #3 from Alex Lancaster 2009-03-16 03:18:31 EDT --- Additional MUST that was missing: [x] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487737] Review Request: slock - Simple X display locker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487737 --- Comment #9 from Alexey Torkhov 2009-03-16 04:22:16 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=335317) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=335317) Patch for makefile to use rpm optflags (In reply to comment #8) > Light WMs like openbox and dwm (slock was written for) bound commands, > not fd.o .desktop nonsense. Ok then. Please add a comment to spec telling that it is not need .desktop file and brief explanation. > How to create static patch for config.mk that will get arch-specific CFLAGS? Very simple - use $RPM_OPT_FLAGS environment variable. I've made a patch - it is in attachment as an example. Programs with good makefiles do not require any patching at all - you can pass flags in make call just like "make CXXFLAGS=...", but this makefile written in bad way, so it'll not add includes to flags. > I think sed expressions are pretty good options for one-line patching - my > EFL/E17 specs have plenty of those. This is a bad practice in case of makefiles - you won't notice when upstream source changes. I think, sed is good in opposite cases - when patch would be ugly, or big, or when change made by sed if safe for changes, etc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478769] Review Request: spring-installer - Installer for the Spring game's maps and mods
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478769 Alexey Torkhov changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||490407 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486937] Review Request: rhnlib - Python libraries for the RHN project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486937 Miroslav Suchy changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476471 --- Comment #58 from Jens Petersen 2009-03-16 05:28:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #57) > Don't we have a precedent for this already? We have version numbers (of a > sort) on compatibility libraries in Fedora, like "libsoup22" for instance, so > we can carry multiple parallel versions. We can do whatever we want... :) but do we really want to ship all the old relnotes in every release? Can't people just read them on the web. I am not veto'ing parallel install per se, but maybe it is worth considerng what is so special about docs packages that warrants/necessitates parallel install since we don't really do this for any other packages except libraries/tools needed occasionally for back-compatibility. > Can anyone clarify the difference between that situation and this? I guess libsoup22 was actually needed by one or more other packages in the distro? (Looks like it could/should actually be dropped now though - nothing seems to need it anymore - which illustrates the problem of keeping old compat packages around.) > If someone wants to work on Fedora 11 release notes in Fedora 10, and be able > to install them in parallel to see the results of their WIP, how would we > accomplish that, without having some distinction in the name of the package? Doesn't publican allow writers to create html/pdf file output for reviewing docs, etc without having to roll an 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476471 --- Comment #59 from Jens Petersen 2009-03-16 05:30:28 EDT --- Are we going to do a new package review for every release? :) The two main questions in my mind are: 1) What is the name of the .spec file? 2) What is the name of the base package? The rest is just auxillary in my mind. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478769] Review Request: spring-installer - Installer for the Spring game's maps and mods
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478769 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rjo...@redhat.com --- Comment #12 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-16 05:52:43 EDT --- I'll do the ocaml-zip 1.04 packaging 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 470914] Review Request: slv2 - An LV2 host 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=470914 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo? --- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt 2009-03-16 05:56:29 EDT --- All http://people.redhat.com/green URLs give 404 Not Found -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453848] Review Request: globus-core - Globus Toolkit - Globus Core
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453848 --- Comment #15 from Hans de Goede 2009-03-16 05:58:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14) > (In reply to comment #13) > > Ok, so I see now reviewing other globus packages that quite a few are for > > devel > > use only. > > No, globus-core is the only one. > Ah, my mistake. > > So please drop the "devel" from the %files list and remove the -devel > > subpackage, that will also yield a nice simplification (lines reduction) > > of the spec file. > > New iteration implementing this request available here: > > SRPM: > http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/repos/globus/fedora/10/src/SRPMS/globus-core-5.15-0.5.fc10.src.rpm > SPEC: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/repos/globus/info/globus-core.spec Thanks! I really think this is the best way forward, sorry for the change of mind. When importing into CVS (once sponsored) please use this version. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453849] Review Request: globus-libtool - Globus Toolkit - Globus libtool package (virtual GPT glue package)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453849 --- Comment #6 from Hans de Goede 2009-03-16 06:01:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > MUST FIX > > > > * Since this is for devel use only, drop the -devel subpackage and > > put all %files in main package > The 2nd point I think is a misunderstanding. The main subpackage is not a > devel > package. It is there to satisfy a runtime dependency, not a build dependency. > > The globus-libtool and globus-openssl packages are what I call GPT glue > packages. They provide the GPT metadata files for packages already in the > distribution (libtool-ltdt and openssl), so that the packages in the > distribution can be used instead of duplicating them - which would violate the > packaging guidelines. > > As the packages they replace they have a main and a devel subpackage > (globus-openssl even has a utils subpackage to split off the dependency on the > openssl binaries from the openssl libraries - which the GPT package does but > Fedora package does not do). > > If someone installs the binary globus packages and the grid-packaging-tools > package and uses gpt to examine the installed packages the user will get a > complaint about missing packages if the GPT metadata from the main package is > missing, but this user has no need for neither the GPT metadata from the devel > subpackage nor of the dependencies it drags in. > Thanks for explaining I understand better now. > Also, all the RPM package dependencies in the specfiles for the globus > packages > are autogenerated from the GPT source package metadata. Packages that require > the libltdl runtime libraries will therefore depend on globus-libtool rather > than libltdl directly and get the libltdl library dependency from the > globus-libtool glue package. In this way the necessary GPT package > descriptions > are there if someone uses gpt to verify the installation as above, and the RPM > dependency generation is kept simple. > Ah, so the main package is all about gpt provides for libltdl, not libtool itself, this is what confused me as libtool itself is purely a devel tool. > Merging devel with main in this package would spoil the clear separation > between development and runtime libraries and make a binary only installation > depend on development packages in the distribution and drag in unnecessary > dependencies. Ack, in this case the separation is fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478769] Review Request: spring-installer - Installer for the Spring game's maps and mods
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478769 --- Comment #13 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-16 05:59:03 EDT --- Re comment 10: Debuginfo isn't useful for OCaml. It uses its own debugging information. In any case it's not worth worrying about this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478769] Review Request: spring-installer - Installer for the Spring game's maps and mods
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478769 Bug 478769 depends on bug 490407, which changed state. Bug 490407 Summary: OCaml-Zip 1.04 is out, please update https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490407 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453848] Review Request: globus-core - Globus Toolkit - Globus Core
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453848 Hans de Goede changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #16 from Hans de Goede 2009-03-16 06:08:53 EDT --- I'm going to sponsor Mattias now, so I'm approving this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478770] Review Request: springlobby - A lobby client for the spring RTS game engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478770 --- Comment #9 from Alexey Torkhov 2009-03-16 06:05:45 EDT --- - Their source docs tell that it is licensed under GPL without any version: http://springlobby.info/repositories/entry/springlobby/doc/mainpage.dox http://docs.springlobby.info/main.html This makes actual license "GPLv3" (as combination of GPL+, GPLv3+ and LGPLv3). I think, we can do that change and proceed. Upstream should be notified, and change texts to match actual license or whatever they like in many places: http://springlobby.info/wiki/springlobby/FeaturesGoals https://launchpad.net/springlobby http://en.opensuse.org/SpringLobby As with spring-installer, best if they will have license info in README and standard header in every file. - Add hicolor-icon-theme to requires to have proper icon directories ownership. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453849] Review Request: globus-libtool - Globus Toolkit - Globus libtool package (virtual GPT glue package)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453849 Hans de Goede changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Hans de Goede 2009-03-16 06:08:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > New version > - Added s390x as 64 bit arch > - Added comment documenting source > - Adapt to changes in the globus-core package > > http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/repos/globus/fedora/10/src/SRPMS/globus-libtool-1.2-0.5.fc10.src.rpm > http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/repos/globus/info/globus-libtool.spec Looks fine: APPROVED! Please create a Fedora Account System account (if you haven't already) and apply for the packager group. When you've done that please drop me a mail (or a bugzilla comment) with your FAS username and I'll sponsor you. When thats done you can do CVS requests for the 3 packages I've reviewed and import them, for more details see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join After that I wish you good luck with finding reviewers for the rest of the globus stack. Your best bet is to send a mail to fedora-devel mailing list and ask for other packagers to swap reviews with (so you review one of their packages and they review one of yours). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453847] Review Request: grid-packaging-tools - The Grid Packaging Tools (GPT)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453847 Hans de Goede changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #21 from Hans de Goede 2009-03-16 06:10:44 EDT --- I'm going to sponsor Mattias now, so I'm approving this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453849] Review Request: globus-libtool - Globus Toolkit - Globus libtool package (virtual GPT glue package)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453849 --- Comment #8 from Hans de Goede 2009-03-16 06:13:59 EDT --- One last remark, when you review other people's packages its a good idea to use a checklist like this one: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JasonTibbitts/ReviewTemplate And then put +/-/0 in front of all the items, and at the end summarize with a should fix and must fix list. Also do not hesitate to contact me when you've got questions when reviewing other people's packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478770] Review Request: springlobby - A lobby client for the spring RTS game engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478770 --- Comment #10 from Alexey Torkhov 2009-03-16 06:42:15 EDT --- - Package snippets changed in new guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 469470] Review Request: mz - A fast versatile packet generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469470 vivek shah changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(boni.vi...@gmail. | |com)| --- Comment #21 from vivek shah 2009-03-16 06:41:10 EDT --- Hi Jason, Thanks for pinging me. I am currently very busy at work. I will be packaging and filing under a different name for this package as per suggestions. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484933] Review Request: libwps - Library for reading and converting Microsoft Works word processor documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484933 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #18 from Michael Schwendt 2009-03-16 07:07:14 EDT --- APPROVED: libwps-0.1.2-5.fc10.src.rpm [...] It's still less than ideal that you create three different %doc dirs, two of them for just a single file, /usr/share/doc/libwps-0.1.2/ /usr/share/doc/libwps-tools-0.1.2/ /usr/share/doc/libwps-devel-0.1.2/ with files 'HACKING' and 'README' duplicated in the main pkg, and with the API documentation not in the -devel %docdir, but as you're free to modify the package in pkg cvs, it wouldn't surprise me if you changed your mind for a future update. ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478770] Review Request: springlobby - A lobby client for the spring RTS game engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478770 --- Comment #11 from Aurelien Bompard 2009-03-16 07:16:32 EDT --- I've asked upstream to clarify their license version: http://springlobby.info/issues/show/810 In the meantime, I've set the license tag to GPLv2 and GPLv3, because settings++ is actually a separate application (spring engine configurator), that is launched from the springlobby menu. * Mon Mar 16 2009 Aurelien Bompard 0.0.1.10429-3 - new scriptlets for the icon cache - require hicolor-icon-theme http://gauret.free.fr/fichiers/rpms/fedora/spring/springlobby-0.0.1.10429-3.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 490133] Review Request: mingw32-qwt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490133 Thomas Sailer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #7 from Thomas Sailer 2009-03-16 07:16:07 EDT --- Built for rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478769] Review Request: spring-installer - Installer for the Spring game's maps and mods
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478769 --- Comment #14 from Aurelien Bompard 2009-03-16 07:42:22 EDT --- * Mon Mar 16 2009 Aurelien Bompard 20090316-1 - new version, with license information - update icon scriptlets The author replied, the code is now GPLv3+ with the proper COPYING file and headers. http://gauret.free.fr/fichiers/rpms/fedora/spring/spring-installer-20090316-1.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481224] Review Request: rabbitmq-server - An AMQP server written in Erlang
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481224 --- Comment #13 from Peter Lemenkov 2009-03-16 07:45:14 EDT --- Ping, 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 478770] Review Request: springlobby - A lobby client for the spring RTS game engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478770 Alexey Torkhov changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|ianwel...@gmail.com |atork...@gmail.com --- Comment #12 from Alexey Torkhov 2009-03-16 07:47:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) > In the meantime, I've set the license tag to GPLv2 and GPLv3, because > settings++ is actually a separate application (spring engine configurator), > that is launched from the springlobby menu. No, it should be GPLv3 as they are linking sources from springlobby and settings together. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489633] Review Request: mingw32-physfs - MinGW Windows port of the PhysicsFS library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489633 --- Comment #8 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-16 08:03:23 EDT --- Plouj, you should continue the process with http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVSAdminProcedure -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489633] Review Request: mingw32-physfs - MinGW Windows port of the PhysicsFS library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489633 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-16 08:01:51 EDT --- Issues in comment 2 are FIXED. Issues in comment 3 are FIXED. Issue in comment 4 is FIXED. - This package is APPROVED by rjones - -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489633] Review Request: mingw32-physfs - MinGW Windows port of the PhysicsFS library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489633 Itamar Reis Peixoto changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ita...@ispbrasil.com.br Flag||needinfo?(plo...@gmail.com) --- Comment #9 from Itamar Reis Peixoto 2009-03-16 08:19:59 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) Richard. have you sponsored the guy ? --- Michael Do you have a fedora account ? what's your FAS username ? if you don't have one please get one at the flowing link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Get_a_Fedora_Account after you get a FAS account please join the fedora packager group and post your username here, so Richard will sponsor you :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476622] Review Request: ocaml-pa-do - OCaml syntax extension for delimited overloading
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476622 --- Comment #12 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-16 08:32:22 EDT --- Let me first just put forward the new version. I will address the other issues in a moment ... Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-pa-do.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-pa-do-0.8.4-1.fc10.src.rpm * Mon Mar 16 2009 Richard W.M. Jones - 0.8.4-1 - New upstream version 0.8.4. - Use http URLs instead of https URLs. - Min version of OCaml required is 3.10, not 3.11. This will let us distribute on Fedora 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 489633] Review Request: mingw32-physfs - MinGW Windows port of the PhysicsFS library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489633 --- Comment #10 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-16 08:41:17 EDT --- I'm quite happy with sponsoring him. TBH I have no idea how the sponsorship process works though ... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478769] Review Request: spring-installer - Installer for the Spring game's maps and mods
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478769 Alexey Torkhov changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|ianwel...@gmail.com |atork...@gmail.com Flag|needinfo?(ianwel...@gmail.c | |om) | --- Comment #15 from Alexey Torkhov 2009-03-16 08:40:56 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14) > The author replied, the code is now GPLv3+ with the proper COPYING file and > headers. Great! Just a few fixes left: - rpmlint says a bunch of errors and warnings about on executable permissions of libsevenzip sources in debuginfo. Should either disable useless debuginfo or fix those permissions in %prep. - Include COPYING in %doc. - %posttrans scriptlet should go to ca-installer 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 487007] Review Request: python-stomp - A python client implementation of the STOMP protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487007 --- Comment #4 from Oisin Mulvihill 2009-03-16 08:39:01 EDT --- I've replaced the tar gzip with one I generated on linux and verified that it does not contain the mac specific ._* files. All the best, Oisin -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476622] Review Request: ocaml-pa-do - OCaml syntax extension for delimited overloading
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476622 --- Comment #13 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-16 08:40:05 EDT --- It looks to me like tests are only building in the %build section, and in fact I can run 'omake test' by hand and that appears to run the tests. I have added a new %check section which does this. I've also removed the LICENSE file from the -devel package, so it isn't duplicated now. I think that addresses all your concerns. Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-pa-do.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-pa-do-0.8.4-2.fc10.src.rpm * Mon Mar 16 2009 Richard W.M. Jones - 0.8.4-2 - Add check section which runs the tests. - Don't duplicate LICENSE file in the -devel subpackage as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468597] Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine 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=468597 Jeroen van Meeuwen 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 459892] Review Request: rubygem-mocha - Mocking and stubbing 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=459892 Jeroen van Meeuwen 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 459892] Review Request: rubygem-mocha - Mocking and stubbing 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=459892 Jeroen van Meeuwen changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|sahar...@xs4all.nl |nob...@fedoraproject.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468597] Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine 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=468597 Jeroen van Meeuwen changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|sahar...@xs4all.nl |nob...@fedoraproject.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468597] Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine 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=468597 Jeroen van Meeuwen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(sahar...@xs4all.n | |l) | --- Comment #34 from Jeroen van Meeuwen 2009-03-16 08:51:35 EDT --- Removed assignee -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489633] Review Request: mingw32-physfs - MinGW Windows port of the PhysicsFS library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489633 Michael Ploujnikov changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(plo...@gmail.com) | --- Comment #11 from Michael Ploujnikov 2009-03-16 08:49:09 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) > Michael > > Do you have a fedora account ? what's your FAS username ? "plouj" > after you get a FAS account please join the fedora packager group and post > your > username here, so Richard will sponsor you :-) I've just applied for the Fedora Packager CVS Commit Group (packager). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230449] Review Request: hostapd - User space daemon for access point
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=230449 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX Flag|needinfo?(kwiz...@gmail.com | |) | --- Comment #11 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) 2009-03-16 08:54:27 EDT --- I don't plan to work on this anymore -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481034] Review Request: coccinelle - Semantic patching for Linux (spatch)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481034 --- Comment #16 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-16 08:54:11 EDT --- OK! Better late than never .. There is a new version upstream, and this uses the correct method to find the python sitelib, using Michal's patch from comment 13. I believe, from reading back over the comments, that this should address everything. Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/coccinelle.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/coccinelle-0.1.5-1.fc11.src.rpm * Mon Mar 16 2009 Richard W.M. Jones - 0.1.5-1 - New upstream version 0.1.5. - Use the correct method to get Python sitelib (Michal Schmidt). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481034] Review Request: coccinelle - Semantic patching for Linux (spatch)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481034 --- Comment #17 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-16 08:57:03 EDT --- rpmlint says: coccinelle.src:77: W: configure-without-libdir-spec coccinelle.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/coccinelle/standard.h See comment 2 for both of these. coccinelle.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/dllpycaml_stubs.so See comment 12. coccinelle-examples.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/coccinelle-examples-0.1.5/demos/launch.sh coccinelle-examples.x86_64: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/coccinelle-examples-0.1.5/demos/launch.sh R I believe rpmlint is wrong here, and/or the packaging guidelines aren't sufficiently specific about whether examples scripts can be executable. See: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/thread.html#00355 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487527#c3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481034] Review Request: coccinelle - Semantic patching for Linux (spatch)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481034 --- Comment #18 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-16 09:00:18 EDT --- Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1243586 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490441] New: Review Request: hyphen-mn - Mongolian hyphenation rules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: hyphen-mn - Mongolian hyphenation rules https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490441 Summary: Review Request: hyphen-mn - Mongolian hyphenation rules Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caol...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/hyphen-mn.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/hyphen-mn-0.20090315-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Mongolian hyphenation rules as usable by OpenOffice.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490438] New: Review Request: rhn-client-tools - Support programs and libraries for Red Hat Network or Spacewalk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rhn-client-tools - Support programs and libraries for Red Hat Network or Spacewalk Alias: rhn-client-tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490438 Summary: Review Request: rhn-client-tools - Support programs and libraries for Red Hat Network or Spacewalk Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: msu...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Blocks: 452450 Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- SRPM: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rhn-client-tools/rhn-client-tools-0.4.22-1.src.rpm SPEC: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rhn-client-tools/rhn-client-tools.spec Description: Red Hat Network Client Tools provides programs and libraries to allow your system to receive software updates from Red Hat Network or Spacewalk. Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1243552 Rpmlint is silent on SRC.RPM, but produce 2 warnings on rpm, which I would like to discuss. rpmlint rhn-client-tools-0.4.22-1.noarch.rpm rhn-client-tools.noarch: E: incoherent-logrotate-file /etc/logrotate.d/up2date This name of log file and it configuration file is used for long time. So I do not if the change will not confuse existing users. rpmlint rhn-setup-gnome-0.4.22-1.noarch.rpm rhn-setup-gnome.noarch: W: no-documentation This package contains only libraries, which if presented, then rhn_check from package rhn-setup will run with nice GUI. Otherwise it will run in ncurses. I really do not know what to put there as documentation since documentation is included in rhn-setup 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 481034] Review Request: coccinelle - Semantic patching for Linux (spatch)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481034 --- Comment #19 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-16 09:07:23 EDT --- That didn't work, because of missing BR python-devel. Attempt two: Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/coccinelle.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/coccinelle-0.1.5-2.fc11.src.rpm * Mon Mar 16 2009 Richard W.M. Jones - 0.1.5-2 - BR python-devel. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1243604 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490438] Review Request: rhn-client-tools - Support programs and libraries for Red Hat Network or Spacewalk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490438 Nigel Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||nigjo...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nigjo...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Nigel Jones 2009-03-16 09:18:02 EDT --- I'll start reviewing this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486390] Review Request: simspark - Spark physical simulation 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=486390
--- Comment #3 from Hedayat Vatankhah 2009-03-16 09:14:49
EDT ---
Thank you for reviewing the package.
* BR:
- Latex related cmake files look for "convert" utility of ImageMagic and will
fail if it does not exist. I'm not sure if it is actually used during
documentation generation.
- OK, will be removed
* Requires:
- Yes, each distro (F9, F10 and F11) use a different name! I'll either add
conditional statements for each distro or a file level dependency. I think
package dependency is preferred so I'll add that. (any suggestions?)
- Yes. Ruby is highly integrated into simspark and is used to glue different
plugins and subsystems together to create a functional part. So, I think there
is no need to create subpackages for it. (to be more specific, zeitgeist
library requires ruby, and other main libraries(oxygen and kerosin) require
zeitgeist).
* Build:
- Fixed.
* Cflags:
- sorry for that :( these issues will be fixed.
* ldconfig:
- Yes, it is the default behavior of the upstream package. But, while most of
the libraries are plugins, some of them are libraries which executable files
will be linked to. Should I create a config file in /etc/ld.so.conf.d for
/usr/lib{64}/simspark ?!
* OK, I'll add the conflicts statement.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478770] Review Request: springlobby - A lobby client for the spring RTS game engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478770 --- Comment #13 from Aurelien Bompard 2009-03-16 09:21:21 EDT --- Okay * Mon Mar 16 2009 Aurelien Bompard 0.0.1.10429-4 - fix license tag http://gauret.free.fr/fichiers/rpms/fedora/spring/springlobby-0.0.1.10429-4.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490441] Review Request: hyphen-mn - Mongolian hyphenation rules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490441 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490441] Review Request: hyphen-mn - Mongolian hyphenation rules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490441 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) 2009-03-16 09:28:54 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide). koji build =>http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1243665 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url 6fbef99fdcf60e42781d1a54774d8efa hyph-mn-cyrl-x-2a.tex + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. 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 490441] Review Request: hyphen-mn - Mongolian hyphenation rules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490441 Caolan McNamara changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Caolan McNamara 2009-03-16 09:58:22 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: hyphen-mn Short Description: Mongolian hyphenation rules Owners: caolanm Branches: devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477320] Review Request: ocaml-p3l - OCaml compiler for parallel programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477320 --- Comment #4 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-16 10:09:07 EDT --- According to the README the only test that we can rely on working is Examples/DomainDecomposition. This does compile, but I couldn't exactly work out how to run it. It looks like you need a cluster of machines :-( My updated package removes the duplicated files. Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-p3l.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-p3l-2.03-2.fc11.src.rpm * Mon Mar 16 2009 Richard W.M. Jones - 2.03-2 - Don't duplicate the LICENSE and README.Fedora 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 478770] Review Request: springlobby - A lobby client for the spring RTS game engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478770
Alexey Torkhov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Alexey Torkhov 2009-03-16 10:36:39
EDT ---
Here goes full review:
+ rpmlint output clean.
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
+ Source package does not includes the text of the license(s) in its own file.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one primary architecture.
+ Architectures where package does not successfully compile, build or work are
listed in ExcludeArch.
Bugs should be filled against all 4 spring packages after their acceptance and
added to FE-ExcludeArch-ppc{,64} tracker:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Build_Failures
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ The spec file handles locales properly.
+ Package does not store shared libraries.
+ The package does not designed to be relocatable.
+ A package owns all directories that it creates.
+ A package does not list a file more than once in the spec %files listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
+ Does not contain large documentation files.
+ Includes only doc files in %doc.
+ No headers.
+ No static libraries.
+ The package does not contain pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ The package does not contain library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1).
+ No devel packages.
+ The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
+ Package includes %{name}.desktop file. Properly installed with
desktop-file-install.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
+ All filenames in the package are valid UTF-8.
+ The package builds in mock.
+ A package does not segfault instead of running.
This package is APPROVED, cvs creation should delayed until all four spring
packages are accepted.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489633] Review Request: mingw32-physfs - MinGW Windows port of the PhysicsFS library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489633 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #12 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-03-16 10:39:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) > I've just applied for the Fedora Packager CVS Commit Group (packager). Michael, I've sponsored you based on Richard's recommendation. If you have any questions about the process or future packages, please do not hesitate to contact me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489633] Review Request: mingw32-physfs - MinGW Windows port of the PhysicsFS library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489633 --- Comment #13 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-03-16 10:41:49 EDT --- Also, as the physfs maintainer, we haven't bumped to the higher level releases because it is an API break and none of the dependent programs have moved to the newer physfs API yet. That said, if you need the newer one for your mingw work, I have no problem with it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489633] Review Request: mingw32-physfs - MinGW Windows port of the PhysicsFS library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489633 Itamar Reis Peixoto changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(plo...@gmail.com) --- Comment #14 from Itamar Reis Peixoto 2009-03-16 10:53:57 EDT --- Michael you should continue the process with https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure#New_Packages -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490462] Review Request: rpmorphan - List the orphaned rpm packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490462 --- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-16 11:24:00 EDT --- rpmlint says: rpmorphan.noarch: E: zero-length /var/lib/rpmorphan/keep -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490462] Review Request: rpmorphan - List the orphaned rpm packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490462 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||am...@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 490462] New: Review Request: rpmorphan - List the orphaned rpm packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rpmorphan - List the orphaned rpm packages https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490462 Summary: Review Request: rpmorphan - List the orphaned rpm packages Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rjo...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/rpmorphan.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/rpmorphan-1.4-2.src.rpm Description: List the orphaned rpm packages -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490462] Review Request: rpmorphan - List the orphaned rpm packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490462 --- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-16 11:26:34 EDT --- Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1244239 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489686] Review Request: Armadillo - fast C++ matrix library with interfaces to LAPACK and ATLAS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489686
--- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt 2009-03-16
11:33:15 EDT ---
> %dir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}
> %dir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/docs_user
> %dir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/docs_tech
> %dir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/examples
> %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/*.txt
> %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/index.html
> %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/docs_user/*
> %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/docs_tech/*
> %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/examples/*
Since you create and fill this directory yourself, you can simply replace above
lines with this single line:
%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/
The trailing slash is not important, but makes it more explicit that you
include a directory recursively.
> %dir %{_includedir}/armadillo_bits
> %{_includedir}/armadillo_bits/*
Same here:
%{_includedir}/armadillo_bits/
> Requires: atlas, lapack, blas, boost
Examine your built package's list of dependencies (rpm --query --requires ...).
If there are automatic dependencies on the atlas/lapack/blas/boost library
SONAMEs, drop above explicit Requires from the spec file. We rely on rpmbuild's
automatic SONAME dependencies:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ExplicitRequires
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480538] Review Request: iptux -- a tool for sharing and transporting files and directories in Lan
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480538 --- Comment #35 from Liang Suilong 2009-03-16 11:41:28 EDT --- http://liangsuilong.fedorapeople.org/iptux/iptux-0.4.5-2.fc10.src.rpm Here is the latest iptux. Now I am working for building package for shutter. But I meet some troubles and I need some time to solve them. Later I will write new review requests for shutter and it dependencies. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488968] Review Request: fedora-app-install - Fedora application data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488968 Alexey Torkhov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||atork...@gmail.com --- Comment #24 from Alexey Torkhov 2009-03-16 11:52:46 EDT --- I like the idea keeping app-install database and icons not in package but as a kind of "extra info" that will could have benefits of caching and incremental updating (comment #6 and comment #7). I'm interested in implementing it as GSoC project. The exact way of generating and storing metadata should perhaps be first discussed with infrastructure people. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #2 from Sergio Pascual 2009-03-16 12:00:26 EDT --- The srpm isn't in the URL http://lmacken.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487791] Request to restore knemo package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487791 nucleo changed: What|Removed |Added Component|knemo |Package Review -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 244411] Review Request: rpmorphan - rpmorphan list the orphaned rpm packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=244411 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rjo...@redhat.com Resolution|WONTFIX |DUPLICATE --- Comment #9 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-16 12:22:51 EDT --- I've opened a new package review without realising this one existed already. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 490462 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490462] Review Request: rpmorphan - List the orphaned rpm packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490462 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lvill...@binaryhelix.net --- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-16 12:22:51 EDT --- *** Bug 244411 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 486804] Review Request: libferrisloki - customized build of Loki library from Modern C++ Design for libferris
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486804
Michael Schwendt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugs.mich...@gmx.net
--- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt 2009-03-16
12:39:17 EDT ---
Might be that I've caught all issues, but a lot of work is needed to bring this
into shape:
* Run "rpmlint -i" on your src.rpm and also on all built packages. Try to fix
as many Warnings and Errors as plausible.
> License: GPL
This is not just an invalid value for the "License" tag, it is inaccurate. Some
source files mention "GPLv2+", some the "Boost Software License 1.0". Others
contain a "Copyright Only" header:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/CopyrightOnly
The "macros/ferrismacros.m4" file contains pieces licenced under the "LGPLv2+".
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
> Source: http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/witme/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
There are special guidelines for Sourceforge.net download locations:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net
> Packager: Ben Martin
Don't set this tag. The build-system will do it. In general, be careful with
hardcoding "Packager"/"Vendor" tags in spec files you release. There are people
who build broken binary rpms, which would appear as if they have been built by
you, because they contain your name in the "Packager" tag. The spec %changelog
is less of a problem in case you wonder.
> BuildRequires: gcc-c++
Redundant, as the C++ compiler is available in the minimal build environment:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2
> if [ "$SMP" != "" ]; then
> (make "MAKE=make -k -j $SMP"; exit 0)
> make
> else
> make
> fi
At least with Fedora, you can replace this with just:
make %{?_smp_mflags}
> %install
> %makeinstall
First command in %install section must be: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
(or "rm -rf %buildroot" if you prefer the lower case macro everywhere)
make DESTDIR="$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" install
or:
make DESTDIR="$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" INSTALL="install -p"
shall be preferred over %makeinstall.
> %files
> %defattr(-,root,root,0755)
Doesn't %defattr(-,root,root,-) work?
> %doc AUTHORS README COPYING ChangeLog INSTALL
Typically, the standard file "INSTALL" is irrelevant to RPM package users. Here
it is empty even.
> %{_libdir}/*
> %{_includedir}/*
Package must be split into a main library pkg and a ferrisloki-devel
sub-package, which contains the files needed only for software development
(i.e. the *.so symlink and the headers).
%{_libdir}/* includes too many files it must not include (e.g. the debuginfo
files). Use at most %{_libdir}/*.so.* for the main pkg and %{_libdir}/*.so
for the -devel subpkg.
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib/libferrisloki.a
> -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib/libferrisloki.la
Don't build/include these.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/FerrisLoki/Extensions.cpp
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/FerrisLoki/OrderedStatic.cpp
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/FerrisLoki/SafeFormat.cpp
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/FerrisLoki/Singleton.cpp
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/FerrisLoki/SmallObj.cpp
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/FerrisLoki/SmartPtr.cpp
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/FerrisLoki/StrongPtr.cpp
Hmm?
* The pkgconfig file ferrisloki.pc is questionable, because it is tuned for
static linking and does a few bad things:
> Libs: -L${libdir} -lferrisloki -lsigc-2.0
The shared library is linked with libsigc-2.0 already. No need to link again.
> Requires:
The pkgconfig dependency on "sigc++-2.0" is missing in this field if you really
want it to be a strict dependency - I doubt you want it. It would also add the
proper libsigc++20 CFLAGS and LDFLAGS automatically when running pkg-config,
and you would not need to add them to your .pc file manually.
For platforms older than Fedora 11, the ferrisloki-devel subpackage must
"Requires: libsigc++20-devel", however see below.
> Cflags: -I${includedir} -I${includedir}/FerrisLoki
> -I${includedir}/FerrisLoki/loki -I/usr/include/sigc++-2.0
> -I/usr/lib/sigc++-2.0/include
Why do add two search paths for FerrisLoki and FerrisLoki/loki? There are
several files which include , so the extra search path is not needed.
The sigc++-2.0 related Cflags are redundant, if you would fill in the Requires
field correctly. However, only the boost extension uses sigc++20 headers. And
that extension would need "Requires: boost-devel" in the spec file.
In other words, I don't see why the sigc++ stuff is in the .pc file at all.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 487713] Review Request: wcslib - An implementation of the FITS World Coordinate System standard
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487713 --- Comment #2 from Sergio Pascual 2009-03-16 12:39:43 EDT --- Spec URL: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/wcslib.spec SRPM URL: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/wcslib-4.3.1-2.fc10.src.rpm Duplicated files removed. I have included a patch to link the library with -lm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486804] Review Request: libferrisloki - customized build of Loki library from Modern C++ Design for libferris
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486804 --- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt 2009-03-16 12:41:32 EDT --- > make DESTDIR="$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" install > or: > make DESTDIR="$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" INSTALL="install -p" Cut'n'paste error from a file where I made that typo before. Second line must read: make DESTDIR="$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" INSTALL="install -p" 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 230449] Review Request: hostapd - User space daemon for access point
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=230449 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) Status Whiteboard|NotReady| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467419] Review Request: mingw32-pango - MinGW Windows Pango library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467419 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-16 13:25:52 EDT --- mingw32-pango-1.23.0-1.fc10.2 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw32-pango-1.23.0-1.fc10.2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467419] Review Request: mingw32-pango - MinGW Windows Pango library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467419 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #14 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-03-16 13:24:40 EDT --- Built for Rawhide, EPEL-5, 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 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 Bug 467420 depends on bug 467419, which changed state. Bug 467419 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-pango - MinGW Windows Pango library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467419 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489633] Review Request: mingw32-physfs - MinGW Windows port of the PhysicsFS library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489633 Michael Ploujnikov changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(plo...@gmail.com) | --- Comment #15 from Michael Ploujnikov 2009-03-16 13:28:06 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mingw32-physfs Short Description: MinGW Windows port of the PhysicsFS library Owners: plouj rjones 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 490462] Review Request: rpmorphan - List the orphaned rpm packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490462 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #4 from Ralf Corsepius 2009-03-16 13:41:35 EDT --- Hmm, this package is causing me uneasy feelings: 1) What does this package do what package-cleanup doesn't already do? 2) AFAIU, the nomenclature this package uses clashes with Fedora's (yum) nomenclature: yum/package-cleanup/Fedora: "orphan" == "package is not available in repo" "leaf" == "package without dependency" -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490491] New: Review Request: sysbench - System performance benchmark
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: sysbench - System performance benchmark https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490491 Summary: Review Request: sysbench - System performance benchmark Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: xav...@bachelot.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/sysbench.spec SRPM URL: http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SRPMS/sysbench-0.4.10-2.fc10.src.rpm Description: SysBench is a modular, cross-platform and multi-threaded benchmark tool for evaluating OS parameters that are important for a system running a database under intensive load. The idea of this benchmark suite is to quickly get an impression about system performance without setting up complex database benchmarks or even without installing a database at all. Current features allow to test the following system parameters: - file I/O performance - scheduler performance - memory allocation and transfer speed - POSIX threads implementation performance - database server performance (OLTP benchmark) Primarily written for MySQL server benchmarking, SysBench will be further extended to support multiple database backends, distributed benchmarks and third-party plug-in modules. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226381] Merge Review: ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226381 --- Comment #22 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-03-16 13:53:10 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=335385) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=335385) License check list again -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490462] Review Request: rpmorphan - List the orphaned rpm packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490462 --- Comment #6 from Jesse Keating 2009-03-16 13:51:59 EDT --- sorry, I think I misunderstood what you meant by "orphan". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487791] Request to restore knemo package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487791 --- Comment #4 from nucleo 2009-03-16 13:52:57 EDT --- Spec URL: http://nucleo.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/knemo/knemo.spec SRPM URL: http://nucleo.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/knemo/knemo-0.5.1-4.fc10.src.rpm Description: KDE4 network monitoring tool -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490462] Review Request: rpmorphan - List the orphaned rpm packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490462 Jesse Keating changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jkeat...@redhat.com --- Comment #5 from Jesse Keating 2009-03-16 13:50:04 EDT --- The terminology is bad, and what is wrong with just 'yum list extras' ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226381] Merge Review: ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226381 --- Comment #24 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-03-16 13:55:28 EDT --- (In reply to comment #23) > For 1.8.6.287-6: > > * License > - As attached, please change the license tag as below: > ruby-libs -> (GPLv2 or Ruby) and (GPL+ or ASL 1.0) The correct one is: (GPLv2 or Ruby) and (GPL+ or Artistic) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226381] Merge Review: ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226381
--- Comment #23 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-03-16
13:53:41 EDT ---
For 1.8.6.287-6:
* License
- As attached, please change the license tag as below:
ruby-libs -> (GPLv2 or Ruby) and (GPL+ or ASL 1.0)
ruby-tcltk -> (GPLv2 or Ruby) and TCL
ruby-rdoc -> (GPLv2 or Ruby) and CC-BY
Others -> GPLv2 or Ruby
* Source2
- is found at:
http://elbereth-hp.hp.infoseek.co.jp/files/ruby/refm/old/2005/list.html
* 64 bits specification
---
%ifarch ppc64 s390x sparc64 x86_64
%patch22 -p1
%patch23 -p1
---
- Now the following may be better:
---
%if %{__isa_bits} == 64
---
* %check
- "make test" seems to succeed even on ppc64...
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1244350
* Emacs related directory
- From emacs-22.3-3 /etc/rpm/macros.emacs (in emacs-common) defines
%_emacs_sitelispdir %_emacs_sitestartdir. So from F-11
using these macros is preferred, like:
---
%{!?_emacs_sitelispdir: %global _emacs_sitelispdir /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp}
---
or so (use %global)
* Convering files into UTF-8
- There are lots of files named .new left so these should be removed
(the last " || exit 1" should be "|| rm -f $i.new")
! Note that when changing the encoding of HTML files:
- usually just changing the encoding to UTF-8 is not enough and
also changing "charset=foo" item in the HTML files is needed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480235] Review Request: subtitlecomposer - A text-based subtitles editor for KDE.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480235 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu 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 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment 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=470696 --- Comment #23 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-03-16 14:11:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #22) > Would it be allowed to drop mod_passenger from the package (and thus not use > the CNRI licensed code in the package for Fedora)? > > Could we then continue the review just for rubygem-passenger? If this package is still useful even if mod_passenger part is dropped, you can just do it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486390] Review Request: simspark - Spark physical simulation 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=486390
--- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-03-16
14:08:56 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Thank you for reviewing the package.
> * BR:
> - Latex related cmake files look for "convert" utility of ImageMagic and will
> fail if it does not exist. I'm not sure if it is actually used during
> documentation generation.
- Then okay.
> * Requires:
> - Yes, each distro (F9, F10 and F11) use a different name! I'll either add
> conditional statements for each distro or a file level dependency. I think
> package dependency is preferred so I'll add that. (any suggestions?)
- Package dependency is preferred than file dependency.
> - Yes. Ruby is highly integrated into simspark and is used to glue different
> plugins and subsystems together to create a functional part. So, I think there
> is no need to create subpackages for it. (to be more specific, zeitgeist
> library requires ruby, and other main libraries(oxygen and kerosin) require
> zeitgeist).
- Thank you for explanation.
> * ldconfig:
> - Yes, it is the default behavior of the upstream package. But, while most of
> the libraries are plugins, some of them are libraries which executable files
> will be linked to. Should I create a config file in /etc/ld.so.conf.d for
> /usr/lib{64}/simspark ?!
- Theoretically if the binaries trying to link against libraries
under %_libdir/simspark use rpath, there is no need to use
ld.so.conf method. However if some of the libraries under
%_libdir/simspark are really _system wide_ libraries, I would
suggest that such libraries should be moved under %_libdir.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483498] Review Request: earth-and-moon-backgrounds - Modern background
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483498 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #23 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-03-16 14:12:01 EDT --- Closing this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487791] Request to restore knemo package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487791
Steven M. Parrish changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||smparr...@shallowcreek.net
--- Comment #5 from Steven M. Parrish 2009-03-16
14:36:03 EDT ---
A few quick notes
in the %install and %clean sections replace
rm -rf %{buildroot}
with
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
as it is the more prefered way of doing things
also
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} -C %{_target_platform}
should be
make install DESTDIR=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} -C %{_target_platform}
and
desktop-file-install --vendor "" \
--dir %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications/kde4 \
--remove-key=Path \
%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications/kde4/%{name}.desktop
should be
desktop-file-install --vendor "" \
--dir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/kde4 \
--remove-key=Path \
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/kde4/%{name}.desktop
This just helps keep all packages consistent
Steven
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490508] New: Review Request: perl-Best - Fallbackable module loader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Best - Fallbackable module loader Alias: perl-Best https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490508 Summary: Review Request: perl-Best - Fallbackable module loader Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Best OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: cw...@alumni.drew.edu QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-Best.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-Best-0.12-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Often there are several possible providers of some functionality your program needs, but you don't know which is available at the run site. For example, one of the modules may be implemented with XS, or not in the core Perl distribution and thus not necessarily installed.*Best* attempts to load modules from a list, stopping at the first successful load and failing only if no alternative was found. Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1236078 *rt-0.06 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487791] Request to restore knemo package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487791
--- Comment #6 from Itamar Reis Peixoto 2009-03-16
14:47:33 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
you can use one %{buildroot} or other $RPM_BUILD_ROOT style
please look
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS
all styles will be accepted,
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487791] Request to restore knemo package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487791
--- Comment #7 from manuel wolfshant 2009-03-16
14:52:40 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Steven, there is absolutely no need to use ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} instead of
%{buildroot}. The only requirement ( enforced by fedora, and not for a
technical but for a mere cosmetic reason ) is to use only one set of macros in
all the spec. nucleo does that, so there is absolutely no problem from this
point of view.
See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS
for details.
What could be changed is '--vendor ""' which is not needed in fedora (but IS
required if the same spec is to be used for RHEL - the older
desktop-file-install barfs if there exists no vendor field)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487791] Request to restore knemo package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487791 --- Comment #8 from Steven M. Parrish 2009-03-16 14:58:05 EDT --- Yes I know either is valid, however our KDE packages use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT so was just trying to keep things consistent among our packages, just as I said in my previous comment. Steven -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487791] Request to restore knemo package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487791 --- Comment #9 from Steven M. Parrish 2009-03-16 14:58:48 EDT --- Just installed this for testing on my system and got the following kdeinit4: preparing to launch /usr/bin/kbuildsycoca4 No protocol specified kbuildsycoca4 running... kbuildsycoca4(18327)/kdecore (KService) KServicePrivate::init: The desktop entry file "/usr/share/applications/kde/koffice.desktop" has Type= "Application" but no Exec line kbuildsycoca4(18327)/kdecore (KService) KBuildServiceFactory::createEntry: Invalid Service : "/usr/share/applications/kde/koffice.desktop" -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468604] Review Request: echolinux - Linux echolink client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468604 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-16 15:01:18 EDT --- Yes, this looks fine now. 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 490001] Review Request: mediawiki-semantic - The semantic extension to mediawiki
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490001 James Laska changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from James Laska 2009-03-16 15:03:02 EDT --- Setting fedora‑cvs=? New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mediawiki-semantic Short Description: An extension of MediaWiki that improves content organization Owners: jlaska Branches: F-10 EL-4 EL-5 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461757] Review Request: libdwarf - library for producing and consuming DWARF debugging information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461757 --- Comment #20 from cag...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-16 15:21:04 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=335402) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=335402) generate a valid soname -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487791] Request to restore knemo package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487791 --- Comment #10 from nucleo 2009-03-16 15:19:53 EDT --- Updated knemo.spec on the same links as in comment #4 (In reply to comment #9) > Just installed this for testing on my system and got the following > > kdeinit4: preparing to launch /usr/bin/kbuildsycoca4 > No protocol specified > kbuildsycoca4 running... > kbuildsycoca4(18327)/kdecore (KService) KServicePrivate::init: The desktop > entry file "/usr/share/applications/kde/koffice.desktop" has Type= > "Application" but no Exec line > > kbuildsycoca4(18327)/kdecore (KService) KBuildServiceFactory::createEntry: > Invalid Service : "/usr/share/applications/kde/koffice.desktop" Is knemo leads to this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
