[Bug 495577] Review Request: xsw - A simple slideshow producer and viewer

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495577





--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola   2009-04-14 03:01:28 
EDT ---
- Any possibility of removing the bundled fonts? 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages

- Time stamps are not conserved, e.g.
/bin/sh /builddir/build/BUILD/xsw-0.1.3/install-sh -c -m 644 'VeraMono.ttf' '/b
uilddir/build/BUILDROOT/xsw-0.1.3-1.fc10.x86_64/usr/share/xsw/VeraMono.ttf'
(it does preserve the time stamp of the man page)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 489418] Review Request: nssbackup - (Not so) Simple Backup Suite for desktop use

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489418





--- Comment #4 from Simon Wesp   2009-04-14 
03:04:02 EDT ---
missing Rs:
pexpect (for ssh)
curlftpfs (for ftp)

missing conflict:
sbackup


> So does nssbackup actually work without the gtk subpackage? 
yeah, it should be!

Description: NSsbackup Common files package
NSsbackup common files package. This package is not the software itself 
but contains the minimum set of files to make it run.


> Does it work without ftp and ssh subpackages?
yes!

Description: NSsbackup Fuse SSH plugin
NSsbackup SSH plugin. This package will permit to have the ability
to make backups from and over an SSH location. This plugin use FUSE file
systems.

Description: NSsbackup Fuse FTP/SFTP plugin 
NSsbackup FTP and SFTP plugin. This package will permit to have the ability
to make backups from and over FTP/SFTP location. This plugin use FUSE file
systems.


> Do the ftp and ssh subpackages bring new huge dependencies?
ftp: curlftpfs (currently missing)
ssh: sshfs, pexpect (currently missing)


> And if ftp and ssh do not introduce a huge
> dependency and the gtk interface is always needed, 
> I would say one package fits completely.
You are a fan of splitting it? I'm not a fan of it, because ftp and ssh
shouldn't be excluded as seperate modules and there is only one frontend. If
there are 2 frontends for example i would split it in 3 packages, common with
ftp and ssh support and in the guis gtk and qt.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 492927] Review Request: xcowsay - xcowsay displays a cute cow and message

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492927


Ivan Efremov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||iefre...@unipro.ru




--- Comment #1 from Ivan Efremov   2009-04-14 04:27:00 EDT 
---
It's only 'pre-review' since I can't be a sponsor.

1) license should be 'GPLv3+' (according to headers in source files)

2) why do you use 'pre-release' Release tag? consider changing 0.1 -> 1
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Package_Release

3) consider writing more detailed description

4) preserving timestamps: your Makefile must preserve timestamps using 'install
-p'
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps 

5) your package doesn't own the directory '%{_datadir}/xcowsay/', see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UnownedDirectories

6) note about desktop file:
MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.

7) consider adding man pages describing other binaries than xcowsay: xcowdream,
xcowthink etc.

Good luck!

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 481717] Review Request: ugene - genome analysis suite

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481717





--- Comment #17 from Ivan Efremov   2009-04-14 04:28:58 EDT 
---
1) I updated the tarball (just added gcc 4.4 fixes, no version bumping)

2) i reviewed the following: bug 492927
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492927

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 492898] Review Request: griffith - Media collection manager

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492898





--- Comment #2 from Simon Wesp   2009-04-14 
04:00:57 EDT ---
update to 0.10-beta2
without internal dependency sqlalchemy
needs sqlalchemy 0.5 or higher
works well in rawhide

SPEC
http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/griffith-0.10-beta2/griffith.spec

SRPM
http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/griffith-0.10-beta2/griffith-0.10-0.1+beta2.fc10.src.rpm

for F11 or higher only

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 495357] Review Request: python-twill - Simple scripting language for Web browsing

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495357


Matthias Saou  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?




--- Comment #6 from Matthias Saou   2009-04-14 04:42:53 
EDT ---
New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: python-twill
Short Description: Simple scripting language for Web browsing
Owners: thias
Branches: F-9 F-10
InitialCC:

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 495357] Review Request: python-twill - Simple scripting language for Web browsing

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495357





--- Comment #5 from Matthias Saou   2009-04-14 04:42:34 
EDT ---
Thanks a lot for the review!

* Tue Apr 14 2009 Matthias Saou  0.9-2
- Add -b .noforks to the patch0 line.
- Remove no longer needed --single-version-externally-managed option.

About the file mode, I've found nothing special after a quick search in the
sources, and saw that the koji build has "changing mode of
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python-twill-0.9-1.fc11.noarch/usr/bin/twill-fork to
755", so I think it's the default python build/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 492715] Review Request: KRadio4 - V4L/V4L2-Radio Application for KDE4

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492715





--- Comment #4 from Paulo Roma Cavalcanti   2009-04-14 
05:44:12 EDT ---
Fixed. Thanks.

SRPM URL:
http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/srpms/kradio4-4.0.0-0.7.r829.20090411.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 495669] New: Review Request: sgpio - Intel SGPIO enclosure management utility

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: sgpio - Intel SGPIO enclosure management utility

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495669

   Summary: Review Request: sgpio - Intel SGPIO enclosure
management utility
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: jmosk...@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.fedoraproject.org/~jmoskovc/sgpio-1.2.0_10-1.fc11.src.rpm
SRPM URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jmoskovc/sgpio.spec
Description: Intel SGPIO enclosure management utility

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 481717] Review Request: ugene - genome analysis suite

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481717





--- Comment #18 from Mamoru Tasaka   2009-04-14 
04:57:04 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> 1) I updated the tarball (just added gcc 4.4 fixes, no version bumping)

Does this mean that you are one of the upstream
developers?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 481717] Review Request: ugene - genome analysis suite

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481717





--- Comment #19 from Ivan Efremov   2009-04-14 05:22:30 EDT 
---
Exactly.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 495577] Review Request: xsw - A simple slideshow producer and viewer

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495577





--- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola   2009-04-14 07:38:36 
EDT ---
The pacakge bitstream-vera-fonts provides the same fonts that are used here.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 273701] Review Request: gnome-main-menu - Gnome Main Menu

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=273701





--- Comment #71 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski   
2009-04-14 06:22:46 EDT ---
Ping?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 495579] Review Request: ifstatus - Command Line real time interface graphs using ncurses

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495579


Robert Scheck  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+




--- Comment #10 from Robert Scheck   2009-04-14 07:59:11 
EDT ---
Thanks, I'm trying my best. As it was a tiny package, it didn't consume that
much time anyway. Okay, let's go for the official review.

[  OK  ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
 $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/ifstatus-*
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
 $
[  OK  ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming 
 Guidelines
[  OK  ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...]
[  OK  ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[  OK  ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
 and meet the Licensing Guidelines
[  OK  ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the 
 actual license
[  OK  ] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the 
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of 
 the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc
[  OK  ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[  OK  ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[  OK  ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream 
 source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for 
 this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, 
 please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
 -> f4d413f880754fd6677290160f8bc5d7  ifstatus-v1.1.0.tar.gz
 -> f4d413f880754fd6677290160f8bc5d7  ifstatus-v1.1.0.tar.gz.1
 -> 64dc0d893fe58bfe94174db8717ece23ecc285d9  ifstatus-v1.1.0.tar.gz
 -> 64dc0d893fe58bfe94174db8717ece23ecc285d9  ifstatus-v1.1.0.tar.gz.1
[  OK  ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary 
 rpms on at least one primary architecture
[  N/A ] 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST 
 have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package 
 does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST 
 be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line
[  OK  ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except 
 for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging 
 Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply 
 common sense.
[  N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by 
 using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly 
 forbidden
[  N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared 
 library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's 
 default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
[  N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must 
 state this fact in the request for review, along with the 
 rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without 
 this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [11]
[  OK  ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does 
 not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package 
 which does create that directory.
[  OK  ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files 
 listing.
[  OK  ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should 
 be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section 
 must include a %defattr(...) line.
[  OK  ] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
 %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[  OK  ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[  OK  ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[  N/A ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The 
 definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but 
 is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or 
 quantity).
[  OK  ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the 
 runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the 
 program must run properly if it is not present.
[  N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[  N/A

[Bug 495684] New: Review Request: perl-HTML-Lint - HTML::Lint module checking HTML errors

[bugzilla]

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-HTML-Lint - HTML::Lint module checking HTML errors

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495684

   Summary: Review Request: perl-HTML-Lint - HTML::Lint module
checking HTML errors
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: low
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: mmasl...@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://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-HTML-Lint.spec
SRPM URL:
http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-HTML-Lint-2.06-1.fc11.src.rpm
Description:
HTML::Lint Perl module which checks HTML errors in a string or a file.
HTML::Lint also comes with a wrapper program called weblint that handles
linting from the command line. And finally, it can be also used
Apache::HTML::Lint that passes any mod_perl-generated code through HTML::Lint
and get it dumped into Apache error_log.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 464781] Review Request: flexdock - Java docking UI element. First package.

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464781





--- Comment #51 from D Haley   2009-04-14 07:12:19 EDT ---
Hi Orcan,

Yes, just to clarify, I pushed that in as an update. Sorry I misread your
original post as asking for a link in /usr/share/java/

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 493531] Review Request: perl-Test-Most - Test::Most Perl module

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493531





--- Comment #3 from Marcela Maslanova   2009-04-14 
07:22:32 EDT ---
Ping? This is blocking another package, which was already 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 495669] Review Request: sgpio - Intel SGPIO enclosure management utility

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495669


Dan Horák  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||d...@danny.cz
 AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@danny.cz
   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 489418] Review Request: nssbackup - (Not so) Simple Backup Suite for desktop use

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489418


Robert Scheck  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC|redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.d |
   |e   |
 AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.d
   ||e
   Flag||fedora-review?




--- Comment #5 from Robert Scheck   2009-04-14 08:41:27 
EDT ---
No, I'm not a fan of it. I even think, it makes sense how you've packaged it.
Ideal place for backups is IMHO still remote and not local (think of e.g. hard 
disk drive issues).

Can you please add the missing requirements to curlftpfs and pexpect (I think,
fuse-sshfs == "sshfs" which is already mentioned)? As far as I can see, these
dependency chains are not that huge and a regular desktop user will have most
of the requirements anyway on his machine.

As we figured out in IRC, there's no need for conflicting with sbackup, there
are no overlaps, parallel use is possible.

[  OK  ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
 $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/nssbackup-*
 nssbackup.noarch: W: no-dependency-on usermode
 nssbackup.noarch: W: no-dependency-on usermode
 nssbackup.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/security/
   console.apps/nssbackup-config-gui-su
 nssbackup.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/security/
   console.apps/nssbackup-restore-gui-su
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
 $
[  OK  ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming 
 Guidelines
[  OK  ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...]
[  ??  ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
 -> See points above and below.
[  OK  ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
 and meet the Licensing Guidelines
[FAILED] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the 
 actual license
 -> When looking through the code, I just can see GPLv2+ and GPLv3+,
what makes you thinking, that it is GPLv3-only?
[  OK  ] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the 
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of 
 the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc
[  OK  ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[  OK  ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[  OK  ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream 
 source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for 
 this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, 
 please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
 -> c7fac4bda21350022eda110c56739763  nssbackup_0.2-0~rc7.orig.tar.gz
 -> c7fac4bda21350022eda110c56739763  nssbackup_0.2-0~rc7.orig.tar.gz.1
 -> a6a0a1dc46da44bc3149529ab8d473c0eb0c4de8  nssbackup_0.2-
  0~rc7.orig.tar.gz
 -> a6a0a1dc46da44bc3149529ab8d473c0eb0c4de8  nssbackup_0.2-
  0~rc7.orig.tar.gz.1
[  OK  ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary 
 rpms on at least one primary architecture
[  N/A ] 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST 
 have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package 
 does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST 
 be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line
[  OK  ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except 
 for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging 
 Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply 
 common sense.
[  OK  ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by 
 using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly 
 forbidden
[  N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared 
 library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's 
 default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
[  N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must 
 state this fact in the request for review, along with the 
 rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without 

[Bug 492181] Review Request: gpxe - A network boot loader

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492181





--- Comment #22 from Glauber de Oliveira Costa   2009-04-14 
08:44:31 EDT ---
Of course here are ppc and ppc64 packages. They are just not built there.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 495692] New: Review Request: tslib - Touchscreen Access Library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: tslib - Touchscreen Access Library

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495692

   Summary: Review Request: tslib - Touchscreen Access Library
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: kwiz...@gmail.com
 QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora


Spec URL:
http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/tslib.spec
SRPM URL:
http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tslib-1.0-1.fc11.src.rpm
Description: Touchscreen Access Library

rpmlint, no doc in -devel subpackage. (none are provided wrt -devel).
rpmlint on installed package is clean

build tested with mock for rawhide x86_64.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 495693] New: Review Request: perl-Syntax-Highlight-Perl6 - Perl 6 Syntax Highlighter

[bugzilla]

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-Syntax-Highlight-Perl6 - Perl 6 Syntax Highlighter

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495693

   Summary: Review Request: perl-Syntax-Highlight-Perl6 - Perl 6
Syntax Highlighter
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: low
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: mmasl...@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://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Syntax-Highlight-Perl6.spec
SRPM URL:
http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Syntax-Highlight-Perl6-0.040-1.fc11.src.rpm
Description: Syntax::Highlight::Perl6 parses Perl 6 source code using an
embedded
STD.pm. It matches parse tree nodes to colors then returns them in
different output formats. It can be used to create web pages with colorful
source code samples in its simple and snippet html modes, or it can be used
as a learning tool in examining STD.pm's output using the JavaScript node
viewer in its full html mode. Or you can use its parse tree Perl 5 records
to build your next great idea.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 495669] Review Request: sgpio - Intel SGPIO enclosure management utility

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495669





--- Comment #1 from Dan Horák   2009-04-14 09:02:53 EDT ---
formal review is here, see the notes below:

BAD source files match upstream:
BAD package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
OK dist tag is present.
OK license field matches the actual license.
OK license is open source-compatible (GPLv2+). License text included in
package.
BAD latest version is being packaged.
OK BuildRequires are proper.
OK compiler flags are appropriate.
OK %clean is present.
OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64).
OK debuginfo package looks complete.
OK* rpmlint is silent.
OK final provides and requires look sane.
N/A %check is present and all tests pass.
OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
OK owns the directories it creates.
OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK no duplicates in %files.
OK file permissions are appropriate.
OK no scriptlets present.
OK code, not content.
OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK no headers.
OK no pkgconfig files.
OK no libtool .la droppings.
OK not a GUI app.

- the Source tags points to diferent source archives
- can you talk to upstream about the versioning of their source archives
(1.2-0.10) - is a post-1.2 release or pre-1.2 release?
- I would use package version as 1.2.0.10 in case of upstream version 1.2-0.10
(as post-1.2)
- version 1.2.1 is available
- drop the notes about RH support and Technology Preview in %description
- move the EOL conversion and the removal of executable bits from %install to
%prep section
- output od rpmlint can be ignored
sgpio.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary SGPIO
sgpio.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary SGPIO

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 495702] New: Review Request: perl-XXX - See Your Data in the Nude

[bugzilla]

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-XXX - See Your Data in the Nude

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495702

   Summary: Review Request: perl-XXX - See Your Data in the Nude
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: low
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: mmasl...@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://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-XXX.spec
SRPM URL: http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-XXX-0.12-1.fc11.src.rpm
Description:
XXX.pm exports a function called XXX that you can put just about
anywhere in your Perl code to make it die with a YAML dump of the
arguments to its right.

The charm of XXX-debugging is that it is easy to type and rarely
requires parens and stands out visually so that you remember to remove
it.

XXX.pm also exports WWW, YYY and ZZZ which do similar debugging things.

To use Data::Dumper instead of YAML:
   use XXX -dumper;

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 226033] Merge Review: libmng

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226033


Jon Ciesla  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|l...@jcomserv.net   |tcall...@redhat.com




--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla   2009-04-14 09:19:04 EDT ---
Reassigning to Spot since I'm taking ownership of orphan.

-- 
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 495579] Review Request: ifstatus - Command Line real time interface graphs using ncurses

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495579


Adam Miller  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?




--- Comment #11 from Adam Miller   2009-04-14 09:17:21 
EDT ---
New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: ifstatus
Short Description: Command line real time interface graphs using ncurses
Owners: maxamillion
Branches: F-10 F-11 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 226033] Merge Review: libmng

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226033





--- Comment #5 from Tom "spot" Callaway   2009-04-14 
09:27:47 EDT ---
Looking at rawhide, here are the remaining issues:

libmng.src:40: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
I think this one is safe to ignore, because it is triggering off the "[ ! -x
./configure ]", not the %configure on line 41.

libmng.x86_64: W: no-documentation
Definitely needs to be fixed.

The UTF-8 issues were fixed (ancient changelog entry now has proper UTF-8).

Source0 should be:

http://download.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

Sha1sums match now (78ad516a1de79d00de720bf2a7c9afea2c896b09).

- MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See  Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details.

-- 
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 495412] Review Request: flamerobin - Graphical client for Firebird

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495412


Philippe Makowski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Version|rawhide |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 492203] Review Request: frinika - Music Workstation

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492203


Bug 492203 depends on bug 492191, which changed state.

Bug 492191 Summary: Review Request: jmod - Java Sound MODules Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492191

   What|Old Value   |New Value

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE
 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED

Bug 492203 depends on bug 491421, which changed state.

Bug 491421 Summary: fluid soundfont transition
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491421

   What|Old Value   |New Value

 Resolution||RAWHIDE
 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED



-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 494073] Review Request: libvmime - Powerful library for MIME messages and Internet messaging services

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=494073





--- Comment #4 from Robert Scheck   2009-04-14 
10:11:51 EDT ---
- Why do you %doc INSTALL? Doesn't make much sense to me.
- To me it looks like the $RPM_OPT_FLAGS are not honored, following seems to
  work for me so far and uses also parallel builds:
  > export EXTRA_CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"
  > %configure
  > make %{?_smp_mflags}
- Is there really any need to ship the static libraries? So shouldn't link 
  anything in Fedora anyway dynamically?
- Group "Applications/System"? Wouldn't "System Environment/Libraries" be a
  bit better?
- Regarding the documentation: Did you have a closer look to it, whether that
  one is usable and it's not just a waste of disk space?
- Source0 should be like http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL;
  use: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2

[ DONE ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
 $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/libvmime-*
 libvmime-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 libvmime-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
 $
 -> Okay and accepted according to comment #2
[  OK  ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming 
 Guidelines
[  OK  ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...]
[  ??  ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
 -> See above.
[  OK  ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
 and meet the Licensing Guidelines
[  OK  ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the 
 actual license
[  OK  ] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the 
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of 
 the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc
[  OK  ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[  OK  ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[  OK  ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream 
 source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for 
 this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, 
 please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
 -> 23feb9cff7ba3961c0693926e21448cf  libvmime-0.9.0.tar.bz2
 -> 23feb9cff7ba3961c0693926e21448cf  libvmime-0.9.0.tar.bz2.1
 -> 02215e1d8ea758f486c32e7bff63a04f71a9b736  libvmime-0.9.0.tar.bz2
 -> 02215e1d8ea758f486c32e7bff63a04f71a9b736  libvmime-0.9.0.tar.bz2.1
[  OK  ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary 
 rpms on at least one primary architecture
[  N/A ] 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST 
 have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package 
 does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST 
 be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line
[  ??  ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except 
 for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging 
 Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply 
 common sense.
 -> See above (documentation related).
[  N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by 
 using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly 
 forbidden
[  OK  ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared 
 library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's 
 default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
[  N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must 
 state this fact in the request for review, along with the 
 rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without 
 this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [11]
[  OK  ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does 
 not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package 
 which does create that directory.
[  OK  ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files 
 listing.
[  OK  ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should 
 be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section 
 must include a %defattr(...) line.
[  OK  ] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
 %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[  OK  ] MUST: Ea

[Bug 494073] Review Request: libvmime - Powerful library for MIME messages and Internet messaging services

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=494073





--- Comment #5 from Robert Scheck   2009-04-14 
10:13:04 EDT ---
Ah, one thing I forgot: %configure is looking for /usr/sbin/sendmail - so it
could make sense to buildrequire sendmail package to ensure that dependency
and the resulting build features.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 273701] Review Request: gnome-main-menu - Gnome Main Menu

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=273701





--- Comment #73 from Jeffrey Goh   2009-04-14 10:24:59 EDT 
---
Oh. Forgot

9. Pidgin (I use Spark)
10. Gnucash *wince*


and the URL for the user guide is probably helpful -

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/F8_User_Guide

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 477750] Review Request: Ogmtools - Tools for Ogg media streams

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477750





--- Comment #10 from Gianluca Sforna   2009-04-14 10:28:59 
EDT ---
ah... in that case, "GPLv2+" wins

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 273701] Review Request: gnome-main-menu - Gnome Main Menu

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=273701





--- Comment #72 from Jeffrey Goh   2009-04-14 10:16:55 EDT 
---
Sorry for the delay. It's been a busy month.

After digging around, I managed to find a "User Guide" to the fedora
desktop to use as a reference point.

As a result, I have taken out Google Picasa and Adobe Acrobat from the default
applications list.

Nautilus doesn't make sense to be in applications, because all of "places" is
basically nautilus, as I understand it (happy to be corrected), so I didn't add
it back in.

So, here is my proposed default apps list - any missing apps just don't get
displayed, no weird behaviour whatsoever.  Note that you can right click on any
app to make it in/out of the favorite applications.

1. Firefox
2. Thunderbird
3. Spreadsheet (openoffice.org -calc)
4. Writer (openoffice.org -writer)
5. Banshee
6. Terminal (gnome-terminal)

I'm thinking maybe the following makes sense as well:

7. Presentation (openoffice.org -impress)
8. Evolution - I never actually use this, since I'm able to crash
   it ever so often, but it's apparently the 
   default mail app for both Fedora and SLED *shrug*

If that's generally acceptable, I'll remake the 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 495436] Review Request: perl-File-Pid - Pid File Manipulation

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495436





--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System   
2009-04-14 10:43:02 EDT ---
perl-File-Pid-1.01-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-File-Pid-1.01-1.fc10

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 495436] Review Request: perl-File-Pid - Pid File Manipulation

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495436


Iain Arnell  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||RAWHIDE




-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 462311] Review Request: raidutils - Utilities to manage Adaptec I2O compliant RAID controllers

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462311





--- Comment #10 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)   2009-04-14 
10:45:47 EDT ---
can be closed or ...?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 464074] Review Request: cddlib - A library for generating all vertices in convex polyhedrons

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464074





--- Comment #50 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)   2009-04-14 
10:45:00 EDT ---
Any other improvement ?
If this package isn't usable, it "have to" be removed from the Fedora package
collection.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 495669] Review Request: sgpio - Intel SGPIO enclosure management utility

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495669





--- Comment #2 from Jiri Moskovcak   2009-04-14 10:48:44 
EDT ---
Spec URL:
http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jmoskovc/sgpio-1.2.0_10-2.fc11.src.rpm
SRPM URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jmoskovc/sgpio.spec

Fixed according to review:
BAD source files match upstream:
BAD package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
BAD latest version is being packaged. - i'm packaging the latest version -> bad
upstream versioning
- I asked the upstream developers to fix the versioning and update the download
page.

Fixed:
- drop the notes about RH support and Technology Preview in %description
- move the EOL conversion and the removal of executable bits from %install to

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 492924] Review Request: python-unipath - Alternative to Python modules os, os.path and shutil

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492924


Terje Røsten  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?




--- Comment #2 from Terje Røsten   2009-04-14 10:48:08 
EDT ---
Thanks for the review!


New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: python-unipath
Short Description: Alternative to Python modules os, os.path and shutil
Owners: terjeros
Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11
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 495684] Review Request: perl-HTML-Lint - HTML::Lint module checking HTML errors

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495684


Iain Arnell  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||iarn...@gmail.com




--- Comment #1 from Iain Arnell   2009-04-14 10:55:14 EDT ---
SRPM URL gives a 404 error

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 495411] Review Request: dnsjava - Java DNS implementation

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495411





--- Comment #4 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus)   
2009-04-14 10:55:20 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)

> * rpmlint says:
>dnsjava.src:106: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package)
>   This one is a false warning and can be ignored
I also think it is wrong. Is there bug for that on rpmlint?

>dnsjava.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/dnsjava-2.0.6/Changelog
>   We need to fix this. "iconv" will help.
Off course I seen this. But I do not know from *what* encoding it should be
recoded. Enca also do not help me:
$ enca Changelog
Unrecognized encoding

I think it is not very big problem in any case.

> ! There are some example .java files in the root of the tarball. Their usage
> are explained in the USAGE file. I think these .java files need to go to %doc
> (of the main package). Alternatively, you can build them and put them in
> %{_datadir}/%{name} or so. (You mention about these files in the %description
> too)
Ok, I put *.java into docs.

> * There is a tests directory. The README file mentions about building and
> running these compile tests. We should make a %check section and run these
> tests, if possible.
Tests added.

> ? Shouldn't the group tag be "System Environment/Libraries"?
I do not know. Seriously. Let it be, if you want.

> ! Since you are building the javadoc from source, you can remove the existing
> doc/ directory in %prep
Added.

> * README file says: 
>"dnsjava is placed under the BSD license.  Several files are also under
>additional licenses; see the individual files for details."
> I found that the files org/xbill/DNS/Tokenizer.java,
> org/xbill/DNS/ZoneTransferIn.java are licensed under MIT
> This makes the license BSD and MIT
I must place "BSD and MIT" into License tag? Or what I must do with it?

> * This comment contains single % macro
>#ant -Dj2se.javadoc=%{_javadocdir}/java clean docsclean dnssec jar docs
> Do we need this comment?
No, this commetn unneeded anymore. Deleted.

> ! Also these comments are not needed. They can be removed:
>#Epoch: 0
>#Vendor:JPackage Project
>#Distribution:  JPackage
Off course. I comment out it, but leave for historical reasons. Any
disadvantage from it?

> 
> * This changelog entry contains single % macro
>- In Source0 tag inject %%{name} and %{version} macroses.
Fixed.
Hmmm, very strange why rpmlint was silent on it?! I recheck it now and it is
also silent about this concrete error.

> (Also macroses->macros)
> 
> * "%attr(-,root,root)" is redundant in the line
>%attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}
> I reported this to java folks a while ago. They still didn't fix this
> guideline.
I thought also when copied...
May you correct guidelines?
Fixed in my spec.

> ! In the description, please separate the paragraphs with blanks lines. It'll
> look better.
Ok :)
Done.

> * These BR's seem unnecessary: jce, java-javadoc
Why? It comes from JPackage rpm and i do not touch this.

> * BR: jpackage-utils is listed twice.
Fixed.

> * You don't want to write "specific_version" in Requires. If you need to pull
> openjdk-devel instead of gcj-devel, you can use something like >=1.7 or
> >=1:1.6.0
> * Also use the same number (>=1.7 or >=1:1.6.0) for Requires: java  
Sorry. It is my stupid copy/past. Fixed.



http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora9/dnsjava/dnsjava-2.0.6-3.fc9.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 226033] Merge Review: libmng

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226033





--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla   2009-04-14 11:03:34 EDT ---
Fixed in rawhide.

-- 
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 464074] Review Request: cddlib - A library for generating all vertices in convex polyhedrons

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464074





--- Comment #51 from Conrad Meyer   2009-04-14 11:04:33 EDT 
---
Uh, what? It's quite usable.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 464074] Review Request: cddlib - A library for generating all vertices in convex polyhedrons

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464074





--- Comment #52 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)   2009-04-14 
11:14:16 EDT ---
so, which package is using cddlib-devel then ?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 464074] Review Request: cddlib - A library for generating all vertices in convex polyhedrons

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464074





--- Comment #53 from Conrad Meyer   2009-04-14 11:26:35 EDT 
---
Sage, which hasn't been admitted into Fedora yet. It's perfectly fine for
libraries to be packaged for Fedora even if there is no software in Fedora uses
them (yet).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 462311] Review Request: raidutils - Utilities to manage Adaptec I2O compliant RAID controllers

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462311


Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE




--- Comment #11 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski   
2009-04-14 11:34:08 EDT ---
Indeed.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 464074] Review Request: cddlib - A library for generating all vertices in convex polyhedrons

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464074





--- Comment #54 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)   2009-04-14 
11:42:48 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #53)
> Sage, which hasn't been admitted into Fedora yet. It's perfectly fine for
> libraries to be packaged for Fedora even if there is no software in Fedora 
> uses
> them (yet).  
yep, even if said package itself is (for whatever reason) forbidden in fedora,
there is a need to be assured that cddlib package itself works.

So how can I test that sage works against the current fedora cddlib package ?
even if Sage is at preliminary packaging step ...

BTW: I guess you didn't meant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=198834

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 489418] Review Request: nssbackup - (Not so) Simple Backup Suite for desktop use

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489418


Tom "spot" Callaway  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tcall...@redhat.com




--- Comment #6 from Tom "spot" Callaway   2009-04-14 
11:53:05 EDT ---
License tag on this should be GPLv3+.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 492520] Review Request: swami - MIDI instrument and sound editor

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492520


Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA




--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System   
2009-04-14 11:53:47 EDT ---
swami-0.9.4-4.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository.  If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update swami'.  You can provide
feedback for this update here:
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-3645

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 491862] Review Request: kde-style-skulpture - Classical three-dimensional style for KDE

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491862





--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System   
2009-04-14 11:54:45 EDT ---
kde-style-skulpture-0.2.2-4.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing
repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update kde-style-skulpture'. 
You can provide feedback for this update here:
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-3156

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 491550] Review Request: libass - Portable library for SSA/ASS subtitles rendering

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491550


Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version||0.9.6-2.fc10
 Resolution|RAWHIDE |NEXTRELEASE




-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 491550] Review Request: libass - Portable library for SSA/ASS subtitles rendering

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491550





--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System   
2009-04-14 11:55:45 EDT ---
libass-0.9.6-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository.  If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 491862] Review Request: kde-style-skulpture - Classical three-dimensional style for KDE

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491862





--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System   
2009-04-14 11:56:21 EDT ---
kde-style-skulpture-0.2.2-4.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing
repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update kde-style-skulpture'.  You can
provide feedback for this update here:
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-3215

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 491550] Review Request: libass - Portable library for SSA/ASS subtitles rendering

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491550





--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System   
2009-04-14 11:52:23 EDT ---
libass-0.9.6-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 491550] Review Request: libass - Portable library for SSA/ASS subtitles rendering

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491550


Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|0.9.6-2.fc10|0.9.6-2.fc9




-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 486584] Review Request: perl-CGI-Application - Framework for building reusable web-applications

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486584





--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System   
2009-04-14 11:54:33 EDT ---
perl-CGI-Application-4.21-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable
repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 486584] Review Request: perl-CGI-Application - Framework for building reusable web-applications

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486584


Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||4.21-2.fc10
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE




-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 492520] Review Request: swami - MIDI instrument and sound editor

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492520





--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System   
2009-04-14 11:58:56 EDT ---
swami-0.9.4-4.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository.  If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update swami'.  You can provide
feedback for this update here:
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-3676

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 449135] Review Request: gforge - GForge Collaborative Development Environment

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449135


Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution||NOTABUG




--- Comment #20 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)   2009-04-14 
12:02:53 EDT ---
closing to NOTABUG since there was no answear.
I think there is some redesign within the gforge team, so maybe it can be
re-opened later...

If you think a gforge package can be reviewed for Fedora introduction. please
re-open the bug report.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 481717] Review Request: ugene - genome analysis suite

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481717


Mamoru Tasaka  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+




--- Comment #20 from Mamoru Tasaka   2009-04-14 
12:07:05 EDT ---
Well, your pre-review seems good for initial comments.
Now I approve this package.

--
   This package (ugene) is APPROVED by mtasaka
--

Please follow the procedure written on:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join
from "Get a Fedora Account".
After you request for sponsorship a mail will be sent to sponsor 
members automatically (which is invisible for you) which notifies 
that you need a sponsor. After that, please also write on
this bug for confirmation that you requested for sponsorship and
your FAS (Fedora Account System) name. Then I will sponsor you.

If you want to import this package into Fedora 9/10/11, you also have
to look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT
(after once you rebuilt this package on koji Fedora rebuilding system).

If you have questions, please ask 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 491886] Review Request: xa - 6502/65816 cross-assembler

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491886


Kevin Fenzi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+




--- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi   2009-04-14 12:08:47 EDT ---
cvs done.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 246525] Review Request: libMini - A high-performance terrain rendering library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=246525





--- Comment #29 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)   2009-04-14 
12:08:16 EDT ---
ping ? 8.9.2 is here at least.

We should be pretty close now...

BTW: about Libs.private, there was a change lately with pkg-config behaviour. 
I think most projects were not using Requires.private appropriately...I don't
remember if libMini could have been affected...

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 489233] Review Request: rmol - C++ Revenue Management Optimisation Library (RMOL)

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489233


Kevin Fenzi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+




--- Comment #19 from Kevin Fenzi   2009-04-14 12:07:39 EDT ---
cvs done.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 492924] Review Request: python-unipath - Alternative to Python modules os, os.path and shutil

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492924


Kevin Fenzi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+




--- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi   2009-04-14 12:09:52 EDT ---
cvs done.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 495372] Review Request: python-altgraph - Python graph (network) package

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495372


Kevin Fenzi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+




--- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi   2009-04-14 12:16:48 EDT ---
cvs done.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 495357] Review Request: python-twill - Simple scripting language for Web browsing

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495357


Kevin Fenzi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+




--- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi   2009-04-14 12:16:04 EDT ---
cvs done.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 495418] Review Request: python-upoints - Python modules for working with points on Earth

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495418


Kevin Fenzi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+




--- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi   2009-04-14 12:17:38 EDT ---
cvs done.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 495579] Review Request: ifstatus - Command Line real time interface graphs using ncurses

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495579


Kevin Fenzi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+




--- Comment #12 from Kevin Fenzi   2009-04-14 12:21:01 EDT ---
cvs done.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 450164] Review Request: ace-tao - The ADAPTIVE Communication Environment (ACE) and The ACE ORB (TAO)

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450164





--- Comment #26 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)   2009-04-14 
12:25:37 EDT ---
What is the status of this package ?
And why the currently in Fedora ace package wasn't renamed?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 450164] Review Request: ace-tao - The ADAPTIVE Communication Environment (ACE) and The ACE ORB (TAO)

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450164





--- Comment #27 from Tom "spot" Callaway   2009-04-14 
12:27:46 EDT ---
I'm pretty sure this is still blocking on upstream licensing issues.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC 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

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly 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


Jens Petersen  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|needinfo?(peter...@redhat.c |
   |om) |




--- Comment #67 from Jens Petersen   2009-04-14 12:34:36 
EDT ---
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Minutes/20090331 contains the full
discussion - note FPC explicitly expressed the hope that Fedora releases would
not be flooded for multiple versions of every publican manual, unless it is
really useful but deferred the individual decisions and burden to the Fedora
Docs Project.

(For the record: I am disappointed that it was decided to push these two
changes into Fedora Packaging Guidelines rather than fix the real problems in
publican, but nevermind: embedding desktop files in spec files is also
generally a bad idea since it basically make them hard to translate.)

So back to my questions in comment 59:

* what package are we reviewing here: fedora-security-guide or
fedora-security-guide-11?  Note there is nothing to stop a
fedora-security-guide.src source package from generating a
fedora-security-guide-11.noarch binary package, though I don't recommend that
personally.

If you go for the later base package name than you will have to do a new
package review for every release, and how are you planning to deal with OS
package upgrades? The versioned package should really obsolete the old package
so that the new package will get installed on upgrades.  Hence making such
parallel installs pretty useless: since rpm does not play well with parallel
installs of packages that obsolete each other.  In this sense Fedora is a very
different OS from RHEL.

Parallel packages is going to create a lot more work and packaging complexity -
I warn you now here - it has already been well tried and is know (also from my
personal experience) not to work well for RPM systems anyway.  I fear the
approach may be building on sand or thin ice.

What you probably want and I would recommend is a base package called
fedora-security-guide and then if you really want other version back or forward
ported to a release they would be separate packages called
fedora-security-guide-F10, etc, as Spot also suggested.  In practice I am
skeptical if it would really be useful for this particular guide.

Also the kernel package for example is capable of parallel installs - in
principle there is no reason why different versions of publican packages could
not parallel installed too under the same name.

Things are worse than that though if you read the above FPC meeting log they
further were opposed to individual publican packages per language (though I am
not personally opposed to this) they believe there should be one big package
with all the translations and then just subpackages for all the language. 
While this would simplify the base package naming we know this is a bottleneck
for building translations of manuals.  So taking that into account my overall
recommendation at this early stage of fedora publican packaging is just to go
with fedora-security-guide-en_US.spec and fedora-security-guide-en_US.noarch. 
I don't see any win in including the OS version in the package names currently
for fedora.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC 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

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly 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 #68 from Jens Petersen   2009-04-14 12:40:10 
EDT ---
I just add a comment that I think it should be pretty trivial to write a small
script to massage publican generated .spec into a form more suitable to Fedora
than RHEL - so I don't feel having to use the publican .spec verbatim to
simplify packaging for writers and translators is a requirement here.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 479515] Review Request: Music Organizer - Music Organizer , organize your mp3, ogg, flac and mp4

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479515


Camille GALLET  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|needinfo?(camillegal...@yah |
   |oo.fr)  |




--- Comment #4 from Camille GALLET   2009-04-14 
12:43:28 EDT ---
It's not dead I just didn't have any time to deal with this the last few month,
I will try to find time do the modifications in the next weeks ( April or May
more exactly).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 495684] Review Request: perl-HTML-Lint - HTML::Lint module checking HTML errors

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495684


Chris Weyl  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||cw...@alumni.drew.edu
  Alias||perl-HTML-Lint




--- Comment #2 from Chris Weyl   2009-04-14 12:51:18 EDT 
---
Seems to be working 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 492165] Review Request: rotoscope - A free rotoscoping application.

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492165


Mamoru Tasaka  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||needinfo?(yansta...@googlem
   ||ail.com)




--- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka   2009-04-14 
13:02:23 EDT ---
Yannik, would you address issues pointed out by Kalev
and reupload the new spec/srpm (with Epoch-Version-Release
changed)?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 479832] Review Request: mmpong - a massively multiplayer pong game

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479832


Mamoru Tasaka  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR)  |201449(FE-DEADREVIEW)
 Resolution||NOTABUG
   Flag|needinfo?(maintai...@mt2009 |
   |.com)   |




--- Comment #15 from Mamoru Tasaka   2009-04-14 
13:04:09 EDT ---
Once closing.

If someone wants to import this package into Fedora, please
submit another review request and mark this bug a duplicate
of the new one, thank you!

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 492396] Review Request:php-feedcreator - Create RSS feeds

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492396





--- Comment #6 from Xavier Bachelot   2009-04-14 13:02:12 
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> ok great. Let's see if we can move this forward. 
> 
> As noted on bug 492395, it seems that you can just require php-common because
> it requires php.
> 
Or the other way round, just require php. That's what I've done on my local
copy.

> Then, I am not sure if there are guidelines against it, but installing the 
> file
> in {datadir}/php is probably not a wise idea. What about putting it in a
> subdirectory (for example feedcreator would do). In that case, please remember
> to let the package own the directory.

Not sure what's best here. As this is only one file, I think it's ok to let it
at the root of the php include dir. And anyway, looking at the pear include
dir, I see that's what is done : /usr/share/pear/someclass.php, then a
/usr/share/pear/someclass subdir with everything else. That's what I've done
for php-geshi (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492395).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 495001] Review Request: bareftp - File transfer client supporting the FTP, FTP over SSL/TLS (FTPS) and SSH File Transfer Protocol (SFTP)

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495001


Christoph Wickert  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||fed...@christoph-wickert.de




--- Comment #4 from Christoph Wickert   2009-04-14 
13:20:50 EDT ---
For perl modules one should never use the package name but the perl module
name. So
  BuildRequires:  perl-XML-Parser
needs to become
  BuildRequires:  perl(XML::Parser)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 464781] Review Request: flexdock - Java docking UI element. First package.

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464781





--- Comment #52 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil   2009-04-14 
13:21:25 EDT ---
No problem, thanks for taking care of 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 495001] Review Request: bareftp - File transfer client supporting the FTP, FTP over SSL/TLS (FTPS) and SSH File Transfer Protocol (SFTP)

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495001





--- Comment #5 from Christoph Wickert   2009-04-14 
13:43:24 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> bareftp using foreign code, licensed unter different licenses. don't you think
> they have to take into account?!  

Where is the foreign code? I only spotted GPLv2+ so far.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 488995] Review Request: pidgin-tlen - Tlen IM Pidgin plugin

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488995


Christoph Wickert  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||fed...@christoph-wickert.de




--- Comment #4 from Christoph Wickert   2009-04-14 
13:50:50 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > %defattr(644,root,root,755)
> > please use %defattr(-,root,root,-)
> 
> Why?

Because it's both in the packaging and the review guidelines.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions

> > makro couples 
> > please use:
> > $RPM_OPT_FLAGS and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> > or
> > %{buildroot} and %{optflags}
> > please use one of this couples, but do not mix this.
> 
> You're picky, but OK.

No he's not, it's also part of the guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 489418] Review Request: nssbackup - (Not so) Simple Backup Suite for desktop use

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489418





--- Comment #7 from Simon Wesp   2009-04-14 
14:14:10 EDT ---
SPEC:
http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/nssbackup-0.2~rc7/nssbackup.spec

SRPM:
http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/nssbackup-0.2~rc7/nssbackup-0.2-0.2.rc7.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 494965] Review Request: pianobooster - A MIDI file player that teaches you how to play the piano

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=494965


Tom "spot" Callaway  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tcall...@redhat.com
 Blocks|182235(FE-Legal)|




--- Comment #5 from Tom "spot" Callaway   2009-04-14 
14:14:05 EDT ---
The additional clause in the MIT license is a request, not a requirement.
Accordingly, it is not a problem. 

Since the MIT code is compiled together with GPLv3+ code, you do not need to
mention it in the License tag (the GPLv3+ terms are more restrictive), unless
you wish to do so. License: GPLv3+ is fine. Lifting FE-Legal.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 494965] Review Request: pianobooster - A MIDI file player that teaches you how to play the piano

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=494965


Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+




--- Comment #6 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil   2009-04-14 
14:21:15 EDT ---
OK, since we don't have a legal problem we can approve this package:

---
This package (pianobooster) is APPROVED by oget
---

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 494965] Review Request: pianobooster - A MIDI file player that teaches you how to play the piano

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=494965


Christian Krause  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?




--- Comment #7 from Christian Krause   2009-04-14 14:27:30 
EDT ---
New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: pianobooster
Short Description: A MIDI file player that teaches you how to play the piano
Owners: chkr
Branches: F10
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 495001] Review Request: bareftp - File transfer client supporting the FTP, FTP over SSL/TLS (FTPS) and SSH File Transfer Protocol (SFTP)

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495001





--- Comment #6 from Christoph Wickert   2009-04-14 
14:32:14 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> --missing Rs
> hicolor-icon-theme

Nope, hicolor-icon-theme doesn't need to be specified explicitly, because we
already have a valid dependency chain: bareftp -> gtk-sharp2 -> gtk ->
hicolor-icon-theme

> --- macros
> please use name macro instead of name

No need to use macros everywhere, just where it makes sense.

> --- permissions
> executing of *.dll is not necessary (didn't check this)

Not sure about this, this could cause an debuginfo package. BTW: have you tried 
  make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p" STRIP="/bin/true"?
Just a shot in the dark, didn't check this ether.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 491128] Review Request: photoprint - Utility for printing digital photographs

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491128





--- Comment #15 from Mamoru Tasaka   2009-04-14 
14:33:15 EDT ---
Created an attachment (id=339539)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=339539)
Patch to compile with g++44

Some notes:

* Summary
  - Fedora now considers that duplicating package name in
Summary is just redundant.

* License
  - tag should just be "GPLv2+" for this package. All files
licensed under different licenses than GPLv2+ are
used individably with files under GPLv2+ and GPLv2+
transcends all other licenses in this case.

* BuildRequires
  - "BuildRequires: gtk+-devel" is not needed
 This is GTK+ version 2 package, while "gtk+-devel" on Fedora
 is for GTK+ version 1 package.
 And "gtk2-devel" is required by gutenprint-devel so
 "BuildRequires: gtk2-devel" is not needed, either.

* Build Failure
  - Your srpm won't build on dist-f11 (using g++ 4.4).
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1298108
The attached patch is needed.

* Timestamps
  - Use "-p" option when installing files using "cp" or "install"
commands to keep timestamps on installed files:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps

* Scriptlets
  - Scriptlets for GTK icon cache update is updated:
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 491952] Review Request: astronomy-menus - Astronomy menu for the Desktop

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491952


Lubomir Rintel  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE




--- Comment #6 from Lubomir Rintel   2009-04-14 14:37:54 EDT ---
Imported and built

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 456190] Review Request: dosemu - dos emulator

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456190


Lubomir Rintel  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||CANTFIX




--- Comment #60 from Lubomir Rintel   2009-04-14 14:49:10 EDT 
---
Closing, since this continues in RPM Fusion.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 493684] Review Request: clearlooks-compact-gnome-theme - GNOME Desktop theme optimized for small displays

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493684


Lubomir Rintel  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE




--- Comment #17 from Lubomir Rintel   2009-04-14 14:51:40 EDT 
---
Imported and built

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 470703] Review Request: links - text mode browser with graphics

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470703


Lubomir Rintel  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE




--- Comment #53 from Lubomir Rintel   2009-04-14 14:52:04 EDT 
---
Imported and built.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 494852] Review Request: astronomy-backgrounds - Astronomy backgrounds

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=494852


Lubomir Rintel  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE




--- Comment #4 from Lubomir Rintel   2009-04-14 14:56:04 EDT ---
Imported and built.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 477990] Review Request: xfce4-settings - Settings Manager for Xfce

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477990


Lubomir Rintel  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE




--- Comment #4 from Lubomir Rintel   2009-04-14 14:57:57 EDT ---
I think this was imported and built.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 478531] Review Request: tuxmeteor - Tux Meteor is a meteor counting program

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478531


Lubomir Rintel  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||WONTFIX




--- Comment #2 from Lubomir Rintel   2009-04-14 14:56:32 EDT ---
Okay. I think we mutually agreed this sucks.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 453422] Review Request: songbird - Mozilla based multimedia player

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453422





--- Comment #53 from David Halik   2009-04-14 14:55:19 
EDT ---
1.1.2 source tar balls haven't been released yet, but as soon as they are I'll
post updates.

As a side note, I just wanted to say thanks to Toni of SUSE who has been giving
me rpm feedback in his efforts to port the src.rpm. They now have a nicely
working rpm as well.

kwizart, anything else in particular that needs to be done for sponsorship that
I can help with?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 481732] Review Request: stardict-dic-cs_CZ - czech dictionary for stardict

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481732


Lubomir Rintel  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE




--- Comment #17 from Lubomir Rintel   2009-04-14 14:58:42 EDT 
---
I think this was imported and built.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 461277] Package Review Request: radial

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461277


Lubomir Rintel  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 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037


Lubomir Rintel  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||DEFERRED




--- Comment #24 from Lubomir Rintel   2009-04-14 15:00:44 EDT 
---
Stale review. Closing.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 464074] Review Request: cddlib - A library for generating all vertices in convex polyhedrons

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464074





--- Comment #55 from Conrad Meyer   2009-04-14 15:10:45 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #54)
> yep, even if said package itself is (for whatever reason) forbidden in fedora,
> there is a need to be assured that cddlib package itself works.
> 
> So how can I test that sage works against the current fedora cddlib package ?
> even if Sage is at preliminary packaging step ...

It doesn't yet.

> BTW: I guess you didn't meant
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=198834  

No. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/SciTech/SAGE

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review