[Bug 491614] Review Request: mingw32-libglademm24 - C++ wrapper for libglade
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491614 Mattias Ellert changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Mattias Ellert 2009-04-20 03:17:00 EDT --- Package approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478609] Review Request: djmount - Mounts UPnP Audio/Video/Photo shares as FUSE filesystems.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478609 --- Comment #6 from Fabian Affolter 2009-04-20 03:22:52 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 477958] Review Request: id3mtag - Command line mass ID3 tagging utility for audio files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477958 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(a...@unix.sh) --- Comment #5 from Fabian Affolter 2009-04-20 03:23:22 EDT --- Are you still interested in maintaining this package? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 495885] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Client-SMTP - Asynchronous mail sending with POE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495885 --- Comment #2 from Yanko Kaneti 2009-04-20 03:26:11 EDT --- * Mon Apr 20 2009 Yanko Kaneti 0.21-3 - Add eg/ to the installed documentation http://www.declera.com/~yaneti/perl-POE-Component-Client-SMTP/perl-POE-Component-Client-SMTP.spec http://www.declera.com/~yaneti/perl-POE-Component-Client-SMTP/perl-POE-Component-Client-SMTP-0.21-3.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481717] Review Request: ugene - genome analysis suite
Please do not reply directly 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 Ivan Efremov changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #23 from Ivan Efremov 2009-04-20 03:38:36 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ugene Short Description: Integrated bioinformatics toolkit Owners: iefremov Branches: F-11 F-10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477948] Review Request: simple-ccsm - Simplified plugin and configuration tool - Compiz Fusion Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477948 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fab...@bernewireless.net --- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter 2009-04-20 03:45:08 EDT --- Just some quick comments on your spec file. I did only a 'look-at-it' review. - License is GPLv2+ (or (at your option) any later version) not GPLv2. Mentioned in the LICENSE file and the source header. PKG-INFO says GPL. - Is there no URL for Source0? If not, can you please describe the generation of the source tarball as mentioned in the guidelines. - Isn't 'BR: gettext' a duplicate? 'intltool' requires 'gettext' already. - INSTALL says '...depends on Python and PyGTK'. - Isn't 'Requires: hicolor-icon-theme' is missing? - '--vendor="fedora"' is no longer needed for new packages https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files Version 0.8.3 was released some weeks ago. http://gitweb.compiz-fusion.org/?p=compiz/compizconfig/ccsm;a=commit;h=2deb7e7194ddae144c98ea2cbef7e40f2d468b33 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491519] Review Request: openttd-opengfx - OpenGFX replacement graphics for OpenTTD
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491519
--- Comment #13 from Hans de Goede 2009-04-20 03:54:29
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I tried to package grfcodec but it's a total mess. They mix C and ASM stuff
> and
> totally ignore that there are other arches than ix86. I hacked at the SPEC to
> at least build on x86_64 but due to my not so leet skills I'm probably unable
> to bring it to build on ppc{64}.
>
> Here's the task:
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1308035
I agree with Alexey, try to get it to build without the self decompressing
support. If that turns out to be a problem, we can probably come up with some
hack where we make grfcodec and then build noarch files using it on x86, which
we then can use everywhere.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226377] Merge Review: rpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226377 --- Comment #23 from Panu Matilainen 2009-04-20 04:06:34 EDT --- No, it's not at all that simple. Some of the non-binaries in /usr/lib/rpm are architecture specific configuration files and putting them to /usr/share would be just plain wrong and break things if you actually attempted to share the directory between say ppc and i386. Also rpmbuild puts some actual binaries (like debugedit) into the same directory too, which rpmlint doesn't know as it looks at things a sub-package at a time. -- 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 459874] Review Request: zeromq - Fast messaging system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459874 --- Comment #20 from Peter Lemenkov 2009-04-20 04:12:54 EDT --- Updated to latest version 0.6 (java-plugin disabled since its installation is broken). http://peter.fedorapeople.org/zeromq.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/zeromq-0.6-1.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226423] Merge Review: smartmontools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226423 --- Comment #4 from Michal Hlavinka 2009-04-20 04:23:53 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > almost done, remains only > > > > License:GPLv2+ > > > > Missing license in: cciss.cpp cciss.h > > emailed upstream, waiting for response no response and no change in their cvs, I'll ping them again... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491128] Review Request: photoprint - Utility for printing digital photographs
Please do not reply directly 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 #18 from Zarko 2009-04-20 04:34:06 EDT --- OK. I tested photoprint with Koji (only with --scratch option) for F9 F10 & F11, all four primary architecures, and all is clean. Now, I'm a little confused... How I understand the process, I must first request for a CVS module, isn't it? And I do this with: New Package CVS Request === Package Name: photoprint Short Description: Utility for printing digital photographs Owners: grof Branches: F9 F10 F11 InitialCC: grof after that I can build packages with Koji, but without --scratch option, and than going to Bodhi? In manual for CVS Admin request, stands this: Changing the fedora-cvs flag to "?" in a Bugzilla report means CVS admin attention is needed. But I can not find this flag on Bugzilla 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 491614] Review Request: mingw32-libglademm24 - C++ wrapper for libglade
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491614 Thomas Sailer changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Thomas Sailer 2009-04-20 05:03:41 EDT --- Thanks! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mingw32-libglademm24 Short Description: MinGW Windows C++ wrapper for libglade Owners: sailer rjones Branches: 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 493531] Review Request: perl-Test-Most - Test::Most Perl module
Please do not reply directly 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 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225708 --- Comment #14 from Michal Hlavinka 2009-04-20 04:58:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) > Ping, any progress? dovecot.spec has been updated, waiting for objections :o) -- 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 493531] Review Request: perl-Test-Most - Test::Most Perl module
Please do not reply directly 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 Marcela Maslanova changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Marcela Maslanova 2009-04-20 05:56:55 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Test-Most Short Description: Most commonly needed test functions and features Owners: mmaslano Branches: F-11 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496606] New: Review Request: perl-Log-LogLite - Create simple logs
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-Log-LogLite - Create simple logs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496606 Summary: Review Request: perl-Log-LogLite - Create simple logs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: xav...@bachelot.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/perl-Log-LogLite.spec SRPM URL: http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SRPMS/perl-Log-LogLite-0.82-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: The Log::LogLite class helps create simple logs for applications. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 495564] Review Request: libguestfs - Access and modify virtual machine disk images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495564 --- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-04-20 07:19:11 EDT --- Version 1.0.2 released: Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/libguestfs.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/libguestfs-1.0.2-1.fc11.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1308976 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486302] Review Request: parrot - Parrot Virtual Machine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486302 --- Comment #34 from Gerd Pokorra 2009-04-20 08:56:11 EDT --- Points 1, 3 and 18 are already done. Files are updated on the FTP-Server: ftp.uni-siegen.de. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496633 Mauricio Henriquez 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 496633] New: Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496633 Summary: Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: buhochil...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.ic.uach.cl/mhenriquez/fedora10-monoRPMS/monodevelop-debugger-gdb.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ic.uach.cl/mhenriquez/fedora10-monoRPMS/monodevelop-debugger-gdb-2.0-1.1.src.rpm Description: GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop. This is my first package, and I'm seeking for a sponsor -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496635] New: Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-mdb - Mono Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-mdb - Mono Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496635 Summary: Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-mdb - Mono Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: buhochil...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.ic.uach.cl/mhenriquez/fedora10-monoRPMS/monodevelop-debugger-mdb.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ic.uach.cl/mhenriquez/fedora10-monoRPMS/monodevelop-debugger-mdb-2.0-1.1.src.rpm Description: Mono Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop. This package is for Fedora 10 and 11 (rawhide). This is my first package, so I need a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486302] Review Request: parrot - Parrot Virtual Machine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486302 --- Comment #35 from Lubomir Rintel 2009-04-20 09:35:45 EDT --- (In reply to comment #34) > Points 1, 3 and 18 are already done. Thanks. > Files are updated on the FTP-Server: ftp.uni-siegen.de. I'll proceed with the review once all points are acted upon (either fixed or explained). Please post full URL of SRPM and SPEC file once it is 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 488174] Review Request: nimbus-theme-gnome - The Nimbus theme originally from Sun
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488174 --- Comment #6 from Matej Cepl 2009-04-20 10:07:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > - nimbus-theme-gnome (noarch, requires all the others and only includes > index.theme) Unfortuantely noarch package cannot have arch subpackage, so nimbus-theme-gnome must be arch as well. Otherwise took all your comments. Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1309215 SRC RPM: http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/rpms/nimbus-theme-gnome-0.0.17-3.fc11.src.rpm Spec is in the same place. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496486] Review Request: cclive - Command line video extraction utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496486 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jussi.leht...@iki.fi Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-04-20 10:13:15 EDT --- Please don't use macros in the url, it makes it unnecessarily hard to paste the URL into a browser. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496606] Review Request: perl-Log-LogLite - Create simple logs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496606 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jussi.leht...@iki.fi 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 458826] Review Request: s390utils - Linux/390 specific utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458826 Dan Horák changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #16 from Dan Horák 2009-04-20 10:12:23 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 496489] Review Request: abby - Front-end for cclive and clive
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496489 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jussi.leht...@iki.fi 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 496651] New: Review Request: Kazakh hunspell dictionaries - hunspell-kk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: Kazakh hunspell dictionaries - hunspell-kk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496651 Summary: Review Request: Kazakh hunspell dictionaries - hunspell-kk Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caol...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/hunspell-kk.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/hunspell-kk-1.0-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Kazakh hunspell dictionaries -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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
Please do not reply directly 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 #19 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-04-20 11:29:52 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=340367) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=340367) Where to set fedora-cvs flag (In reply to comment #18) > I must first > request for a CVS module, isn't it? And I do this with: > > New Package CVS Request > === > Package Name: photoprint > Short Description: Utility for printing digital photographs > Owners: grof > Branches: F9 F10 F11 > InitialCC: grof > > after that I can build packages with Koji, but without --scratch option, and > than going to Bodhi? Yes. > In manual for CVS Admin request, stands this: > Changing the fedora-cvs flag to "?" in a Bugzilla report means CVS admin > attention is needed. > > But I can not find this flag on Bugzilla report?? See the attached. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481056] Review Request: squeak-vm - a Smalltalk interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481056 Gavin Romig-Koch changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(ga...@redhat.com) | --- Comment #12 from Gavin Romig-Koch 2009-04-20 12:11:24 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) > Ping. What's the status of this ticket? Why squeak-vm was not rebuilt? This package was built, and is now part of rawhide. Was there some need to rebuild it again that I missed or was unaware of? As far as status of this ticket: the package was approved, checked into cvs, and built into rawhide; but I don't know what if anything should happen with this ticket. I don't see any directions for this in the wiki. If I've made a mistake here I apologise. Please let me know what needs doing and I'll get it 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 496133] Review Request: EMBOSS - The European Molecular Biology Open Software Suite
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496133 --- Comment #1 from Julian Sikorski 2009-04-20 12:13:40 EDT --- For those not following the devel list, it turned out that the symlinks from -devel package are required by jemboss at runtime. One more thing that needs fixing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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
Please do not reply directly 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 #20 from Ville Skyttä 2009-04-20 12:37:59 EDT --- I didn't test the patch but it looks like something that would work, although I'd personally use $CFLAGS and $CXXFLAGS instead of $RPM_OPT_FLAGS (the %configure macro sets them), and try to push the change upstream (obviously the patched file would be configure.in instead of configure in that case), noting to them that their configure doesn't quite behave how it says and how people expect (CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS are documented as "influential environment variables" in configure --help output). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496486] Review Request: cclive - Command line video extraction utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496486 --- Comment #2 from Nicoleau Fabien 2009-04-20 12:45:19 EDT --- Hi, thanks for taking the review. I'll change the url to a "humand readable" one in next releases, if there are some changes to do, or before importing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496677] New: Review Request: nfoview - Viewer for NFO files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: nfoview - Viewer for NFO files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496677 Summary: Review Request: nfoview - Viewer for NFO files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fab...@bernewireless.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/nfoview.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/nfoview-1.4-1.fc10.src.rpm Project URL: http://home.gna.org/nfoview/ Description: NFO Viewer is a simple viewer for NFO files, which are "ASCII" art in the CP437 codepage. The advantages of using NFO Viewer instead of a text editor are preset font and encoding settings, automatic window size and clickable hyperlinks. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1309515 rpmlint output: [...@laptop24 noarch]$ rpmlint nfoview* 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [...@laptop24 SRPMS]$ rpmlint nfoview-1.4-1.fc10.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 438452] Review Request: java-gnome: Java GNOME bindings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438452 --- Comment #15 from Stepan Kasal 2009-04-20 13:30:13 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14) > [-] If the project name and the commonly used JAR filename differ, a symbolic > link with the usual name must also be provided. > > If I understand this guideline correctly, the jar file generated by > this package should be called java-gnome.jar, with gtk.jar as a > symbolic link. I think this qualifies as an exception: java-gnome was always a name for a collection of several smaller projects--the bindings for various layers of gnome libraries. Calling any of the jars delivered by this rpm as java-gnome.jar would make little sense and confuse people. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 438452] Review Request: java-gnome: Java GNOME bindings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438452 Stepan Kasal changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mgar...@post.pl --- Comment #16 from Stepan Kasal 2009-04-20 13:32:32 EDT --- *** Bug 242335 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 495412] Review Request: flamerobin - Graphical client for Firebird
Please do not reply directly 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 Alias||flamerobin -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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
Please do not reply directly 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 Zarko changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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
Please do not reply directly 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 #20 from Zarko 2009-04-20 13:49:29 EDT --- OK, then New Package CVS Request === Package Name: photoprint Short Description: Utility for printing digital photographs Owners: grof Branches: F9 F10 F11 InitialCC: grof -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481056] Review Request: squeak-vm - a Smalltalk interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481056 --- Comment #13 from Peter Lemenkov 2009-04-20 14:18:20 EDT --- Yes, maybe squeak-vm was built for devel - I don't watch the status of packages in Rawhide. But there are branches for F-9 and F-10, and the package still not built for these branches. For example, at F-10 we got the following: [pe...@host-12-116 ~]$ yum info squeak-vm --enablerepo updates-testing Loaded plugins: fastestmirror Error: No matching Packages to list [pe...@host-12-116 ~]$ You should build packages for these branches and push them into updates-testing/updates using Bodhi. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496688] New: Review Request: monodevelop-database - Addin for MonoDevelop for an integrated database explorer and editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: monodevelop-database - Addin for MonoDevelop for an integrated database explorer and editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496688 Summary: Review Request: monodevelop-database - Addin for MonoDevelop for an integrated database explorer and editor Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: buhochil...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.ic.uach.cl/mhenriquez/fedora10-monoRPMS/monodevelop-database.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ic.uach.cl/mhenriquez/fedora10-monoRPMS/monodevelop-database-2.0-1.2.src.rpm Description: Addin for MonoDevelop for an integrated database explorer and editor. Cureently only explorer is working, DB edition is not possible. This is one of my first packages so I need sponsor!!! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496688] Review Request: monodevelop-database - Addin for MonoDevelop for an integrated database explorer and editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496688 Mauricio Henriquez 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 496689] New: Review Request: monodevelop-java - Java language integration with MonoDevelop based on ikvm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: monodevelop-java - Java language integration with MonoDevelop based on ikvm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496689 Summary: Review Request: monodevelop-java - Java language integration with MonoDevelop based on ikvm Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: buhochil...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.ic.uach.cl/mhenriquez/fedora10-monoRPMS/monodevelop-java.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ic.uach.cl/mhenriquez/fedora10-monoRPMS/monodevelop-java-2.0-1.2.src.rpm Description: Java language integration with MonoDevelop based on ikvm. ikvm packages need urgently be updated!!! This is one of my first packages so I need a sponsor!!! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496689] Review Request: monodevelop-java - Java language integration with MonoDevelop based on ikvm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496689 Mauricio Henriquez 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 496697] New: Review Request: ikvm - This package provides IKVM.NET
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ikvm - This package provides IKVM.NET https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496697 Summary: Review Request: ikvm - This package provides IKVM.NET Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: buhochil...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.ic.uach.cl/mhenriquez/fedora10-monoRPMS/ikvm.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ic.uach.cl/mhenriquez/fedora10-monoRPMS/ikvm-0.38.0.4-3.2.src.rpm Description: This package provides IKVM.NET, an open source Java compatibility layer for Mono, which includes a Virtual Machine, a bytecode compiler, and various class libraries for Java, as well as tools for Java and Mono interoperability. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483364] Review Request: EekBoek - Bookkeeping software for small and medium-size businesses
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483364
--- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-04-20
15:01:22 EDT ---
Some notes:
* %define -> %global
- For some reasons (especially due to rpm's "unexpected" behaviour
with nested macros), Fedora now suggests to use %global instead
of %define:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define
* Including additional documents as Source
- When including additional documents, please add them as Sources
instead of making patch, like:
-
Source1: README.postgres
.
.
%prep
%setup -q
%patch0 -p0 -b .script
cp -p %SOURCE1 .
-
(Also see the below comments about timestamps)
* Dependency between subpackages
- Usually the dependency between packages rebuilt from the same
srpm is strict EVR (Epoch-Version-Release) specific (not only
version specific):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
! %setup
- "-n %{name}-%{version}" is the default of %setup, so
"%setup -q" is enough here.
* Timestamps
- When using "cp" or "install" commands, use "-p" option to
keep timestamps on installed files:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps
* Permission
-
%{__find} blib/lib ! -type d -printf "%{__install} -m 0444 %p
%{buildroot}%{ebshare}/lib/%%P\n" | sh -x
-
- Usually these files should have 0644 permission.
* %files
-
# Collect the list of files. Basically we include all files except
# the EB/DB (database specific) modules.
( cd %{buildroot};
%{__find} ./%{ebshare} -type d -printf "dir %{ebshare}/%%P\n";
%{__find} ./%{ebshare} -type f -printf "%{ebshare}/%%P\\n" | %{__grep} -v
"lib/EB/DB/.*pm"
) > .files
# Include the SQLite driver.
echo '%{ebshare}/lib/EB/DB/Sqlite.pm' >> .files
-
- The following is much simpler:
-
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc ...
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/%{lcname}
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/%{lcname}/%{lcname}.conf
%{ebshare}/
%exclude %{ebshare}/lib/EB/DB/Postgres.pm
%{_bindir}/ebshell
%{_mandir}/man1/*
%files db-postgresql
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc README.postgres
%{ebshare}/lib/EB/DB/Postgres.pm
-
* Documents
- Usually the file "INSTALL" is for people who want to install the
package by themselves and not needed for rpm users.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 494965] Review Request: pianobooster - A MIDI file player that teaches you how to play the piano
Please do not reply directly 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 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2009-04-20 15:08:30 EDT --- pianobooster-0.6.2-4.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pianobooster-0.6.2-4.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496701] New: Review Request: gxmessage - GTK2 based xmessage clone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: gxmessage - GTK2 based xmessage clone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496701 Summary: Review Request: gxmessage - GTK2 based xmessage clone Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fed...@christoph-wickert.de QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/gxmessage.spec SRPM URL: http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/gxmessage-2.12.1-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Gxmassage is a GTK2 based xmessage clone. It pops up a dialog window, displays a given message or question, then waits for the user's response. That response is returned as the program's exit code. Because gxmessage is a drop-in alternative to xmessage, gxmessage accepts any option xmessage would, and returns the same exit codes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483364] Review Request: EekBoek - Bookkeeping software for small and medium-size businesses
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483364 --- Comment #13 from Hans de Goede 2009-04-20 15:08:29 EDT --- Mamoru thanks for the input, Johan what Mamoru said :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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
Please do not reply directly 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 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2009-04-20 15:27:31 EDT --- pianobooster-0.6.2-4.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pianobooster-0.6.2-4.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496486] Review Request: cclive - Command line video extraction utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496486
--- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-04-20 15:35:26
EDT ---
rpmlint output is clean.
MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. NEEDSFIX
- URL should not use %{name}.
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 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: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. NEEDSFIX
- Time stamps are not preserved in install phase, use
make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p" install
instead of
make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. NEEDSFIX
- Do not ship INSTALL, it only contains compilation instructions.
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. OK
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. OK
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491767] Review Request: nss-ldapd - An nsswitch module which uses directory servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491767
--- Comment #16 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-04-20 15:51:11
EDT ---
Well, I figured out that my problems getting this to work simply go away with
'setenforce 0'. Here are the complaints I see while running in permissive
mode:
type=1400 audit(1240256724.128:55): avc: denied { write } for pid=1712
comm="nscd" name="socket" dev=dm-4 ino=409614
scontext=system_u:system_r:nscd_t:s0 tcontext=system_u:object_r:var_run_t:s0
tclass=sock_file
type=1400 audit(1240256724.134:56): avc: denied { connectto } for pid=1712
comm="nscd" path="/var/run/nslcd/socket" scontext=system_u:system_r:nscd_t:s0
tcontext=system_u:system_r:initrc_t:s0 tclass=unix_stream_socket
The daemon started fine, but it seems that nothing could talk to it. I guess
some policy tweaks will be needed before this gets to the point of being
useful.
BTW, does Simo know you're packaging this for inclusion? I thought SSSD was
supposed to do the same thing in a different way.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496489] Review Request: abby - Front-end for cclive and clive
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496489
Jussi Lehtola changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-04-20 15:47:43
EDT ---
- Shouldn't this package Requires: clive, cclive from a usability point of
view..?
rpmlint output is clean.
MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. NEEDSFIX
- Don't use %{name} in URL.
- "install -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}" is redundant since "install -Dm 755 -p
%{name} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}" already creates the directory for you. Also
desktop-file-install seems to create the destination directory automatically,
so you can drop the directory line altogether.
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 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: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. OK
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. OK
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
You can do the fixes upon import to CVS. The package has been
APPROVED
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492130] Review Request: mingw32-gtkmm24 - MinGW Windows C++ interface for GTK2 (a GUI library for X)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492130 Thomas Sailer changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||496718(mingw32-plotmm) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496718] New: Review Request: mingw32-plotmm - MinGW GTKmm plot widget for scientific applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mingw32-plotmm - MinGW GTKmm plot widget for scientific applications Alias: mingw32-plotmm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496718 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-plotmm - MinGW GTKmm plot widget for scientific applications Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Depends on: 492130 Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-plotmm.spec SRPM URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-plotmm-0.1.2-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows C++ wrapper for libxml2. Approved MinGW packaging guidelines are here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496606] Review Request: perl-Log-LogLite - Create simple logs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496606
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-04-20 16:20:02
EDT ---
rpmlint output is clean.
Provides are sane:
perl(Log::LogLite) = 0.82
perl(Log::NullLogLite) = 0.82
perl-Log-LogLite = 0.82-1.fc10
Requires:
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0)
perl(Carp)
perl(IO::LockedFile) >= 0.21
perl(Log::LogLite)
perl(strict)
perl(vars)
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1
MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. 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 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.
NEEDSFIX
- According to README:
This package is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the same terms as Perl itself.
- License of Perl is: (GPL+ or Artistic) and (GPLv2+ or Artistic)
- Please contact upstream and ask them to clarify license.
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/Log
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/Log/LogLite.pm
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/Log/NullLogLite.pm
/usr/share/doc/perl-Log-LogLite-0.82
/usr/share/doc/perl-Log-LogLite-0.82/Changes
/usr/share/doc/perl-Log-LogLite-0.82/README
/usr/share/man/man3/Log::LogLite.3pm.gz
/usr/share/man/man3/Log::NullLogLite.3pm.gz
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. OK
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496486] Review Request: cclive - Command line video extraction utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496486 --- Comment #4 from Nicoleau Fabien 2009-04-20 16:34:37 EDT --- Update : Spec URL: http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/SPECS/cclive.spec SRPM URL: http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/srpms.fc10/cclive-0.3.2-2.fc10.src.rpm Changelog : - URL fix - Preserve timestamps - Remove INSTALL file from doc section -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496606] Review Request: perl-Log-LogLite - Create simple logs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496606 --- Comment #2 from Xavier Bachelot 2009-04-20 16:50:54 EDT --- Thanks for the review Jussi. (In reply to comment #1) > MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. > NEEDSFIX > - According to README: >This package is free software; you can redistribute it and/or >modify it under the same terms as Perl itself. > - License of Perl is: (GPL+ or Artistic) and (GPLv2+ or Artistic) The perl license is GPL+ or Artistic, according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#License_tag Why do you say it should be (GPL+ or Artistic) and (GPLv2+ or Artistic) ? I never saw that until today. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496606] Review Request: perl-Log-LogLite - Create simple logs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496606 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-04-20 16:56:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > > license. > > NEEDSFIX > > - According to README: > >This package is free software; you can redistribute it and/or > >modify it under the same terms as Perl itself. > > - License of Perl is: (GPL+ or Artistic) and (GPLv2+ or Artistic) > > The perl license is GPL+ or Artistic, according to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#License_tag > > Why do you say it should be (GPL+ or Artistic) and (GPLv2+ or Artistic) ? I > never saw that until today. Okay, I missed the guideline on that one. Thanks. rpm -qi perl states: License: (GPL+ or Artistic) and (GPLv2+ or Artistic). Maybe it's a bug in the perl RPM...? The package has been APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491566] Review Request: powwow - A console MUD client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491566 --- Comment #9 from Kalev Lember 2009-04-20 16:58:22 EDT --- I talked to upstream powwow maintainer and he agreed to remove follow and catrw from "make install" target and to perform the following renames: muc -> powwow-muc movie_play -> powwow-movieplay movie2ascii -> powwow-movie2ascii Spec URL: http://www.smartlink.ee/~kalev/powwow.spec SRPM URL: http://www.smartlink.ee/~kalev/powwow-1.2.14-3.fc11.src.rpm * Mon Apr 20 2009 Kalev Lember - 1.2.14-3 - Rework powwow-devel description. - Rename movie_play and muc, remove catrw and follow to avoid possible name clashes and to reflect upstream changes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496486] Review Request: cclive - Command line video extraction utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496486 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-04-20 16:58:55 EDT --- Everything has been fixed; the package has been APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496489] Review Request: abby - Front-end for cclive and clive
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496489 --- Comment #2 from Nicoleau Fabien 2009-04-20 17:07:44 EDT --- Thank you for the review. I'll fix URL. Before importing, about the first question, for requires : - at first, cclive was the only one compatible with abby. clive is compatible since last version. As cclive is lighter than clive, I think I could add cclive as a require for abby - an other solution is to create a virtual provide, in clive and cclive, like "clive_backend". Then abby could have a require on "clive_backend". I don't know if it's a good solution. BTW, cclive/abby is originally the "real" couple. I don't really know what i the best solution. May be we can also let the user choose himselft his own backend. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496606] Review Request: perl-Log-LogLite - Create simple logs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496606 Xavier Bachelot changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Xavier Bachelot 2009-04-20 17:07:19 EDT --- Oh, ok, I understand now. The perl spec file says : # Modules Tie::File and Getopt::Long are licenced under "GPLv2+ or Artistic," # we have to reflect that in the sub-package containing them. License:(GPL+ or Artistic) and (GPLv2+ or Artistic) perl itself is GPL+ or Artistic, only some sub-packages are GPLv2+ or Artistic, but this needs to be reflected on the package as a whole. But when a module is released under the same license as perl, then the correct license is GPL+ or Artistic. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Log-LogLite Short Description: Create simple logs Owners: xavierb Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11 EL-5 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225974] Merge Review: krb5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225974 --- Comment #12 from Nalin Dahyabhai 2009-04-20 17:13:34 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) > >> krb5.src: W: strange-permission krb5-tex-pdf.sh 0755 > >> A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. > >> Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. > > > >We run this script during the build. We could take the execute bit off and > >run > >a shell with the script as its argument, I guess. > > Probably worth doing. Done. > >> krb5-libs.i386: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/kerberos/man/man5/.k5login.5.gz > >> The file or directory is hidden. You should see if this is normal, and > >> delete > >> it from the package if not. > >> > >> ??? > > > >This is the man page for the use of ~/.k5login. Not really sure what to do > >with it. > > Since it's a valid manpage with a valid name, file a bug for an rpmlint > exception. Filed bug #496735. > >> krb5-workstation.i386: E: setuid-binary /usr/kerberos/bin/ksu root 04755 > >> The file is setuid, this may be dangerous, especially if this file is > >> setuid > >> root. > >> > >> Necessary, I suspect. > > > >Yup. For a while we took the setuid bit off, but it's actually useless > >without > >it, and the bug reports were rarely friendly. > > I can imagine. :) rpmlint exception here, too. Filed, bug #496737. > ... > Am I to understand that this will be deprecated upon removal of krb4 stuff? Yup. When the code to handle the krb4 protocol gets turned off and eventually ejected, krb524 (and its client, krb524init) disappear as well. -- 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 496486] Review Request: cclive - Command line video extraction utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496486 Nicoleau Fabien changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Nicoleau Fabien 2009-04-20 17:17:11 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: cclive Short Description: Command line video extraction utility Owners: eponyme 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 496489] Review Request: abby - Front-end for cclive and clive
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496489 --- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-04-20 17:28:37 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > Thank you for the review. I'll fix URL. > Before importing, about the first question, for requires : > - at first, cclive was the only one compatible with abby. clive is compatible > since last version. As cclive is lighter than clive, I think I could add > cclive > as a require for abby > - an other solution is to create a virtual provide, in clive and cclive, like > "clive_backend". Then abby could have a require on "clive_backend". I don't > know if it's a good solution. > > BTW, cclive/abby is originally the "real" couple. > > I don't really know what i the best solution. May be we can also let the user > choose himselft his own backend. Since clive and cclive are trivial in size, I'd put both as requirements. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496742] New: Review Request: elfelli - Visualisation tool for flux lines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: elfelli - Visualisation tool for flux lines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496742 Summary: Review Request: elfelli - Visualisation tool for flux lines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fab...@bernewireless.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/elfelli.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/elfelli-0.3-1.fc10.src.rpm Project URL: http://home.gna.org/elfelli/ Description: A tool to calculate and visualize electric flux lines around charged bodies. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1309775 rpmlint output: [...@laptop24 i386]$ rpmlint elfelli* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [...@laptop24 SRPMS]$ rpmlint elfelli-0.3-1.fc10.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491566] Review Request: powwow - A console MUD client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491566 --- Comment #10 from Thomas Sailer 2009-04-20 17:40:59 EDT --- APPROVED by sailer -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496489] Review Request: abby - Front-end for cclive and clive
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496489 --- Comment #4 from Nicoleau Fabien 2009-04-20 17:54:40 EDT --- As clive will also generate some perl requriements, and if you are ok with that, I prefer put only cclive as an explicit requirement. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491566] Review Request: powwow - A console MUD client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491566 --- Comment #11 from Kalev Lember 2009-04-20 18:02:46 EDT --- Thanks for the review, Thomas. Could you please set the fedora-review flag too? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491566] Review Request: powwow - A console MUD client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491566 Thomas Sailer changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491566] Review Request: powwow - A console MUD client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491566 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Kalev Lember 2009-04-20 18:19:53 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: powwow Short Description: A console MUD client Owners: kalev 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 483364] Review Request: EekBoek - Bookkeeping software for small and medium-size businesses
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483364 --- Comment #14 from Johan Vromans 2009-04-20 18:25:09 EDT --- Spec URL: http://www.squirrel.nl/pub/xfer/EekBoek.spec SRPM URL: http://www.squirrel.nl/pub/xfer/EekBoek-1.04.03-2.fc11.src.rpm Description: EekBoek is a bookkeeping package for small and medium-size businesses. Unlike other accounting software, EekBoek has both a command-line interface (CLI) and a graphical user-interface (GUI, currently under development). Furthermore, it has a complete Perl API to create your own custom applications. EekBoek is designed for the Dutch/European market and currently available in Dutch only. An English translation is in the works (help appreciated). The spec file is non-trivial but well commented. The spec file and rpms are rpmlint free with the exception of two files that are not utf8. This is intentional, these files need to be latin1. All comments from review #12 are applied, although I must remark that I do not see why an Epoch is needed. The link is all but helpful, and some further reading reveals that 'Epoch should be avoided if possible'... Results of last koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1310184 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496757] New: Package Review: ibus-table-yong
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Package Review: ibus-table-yong https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496757 Summary: Package Review: ibus-table-yong Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Keywords: i18n Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ccha...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, peter...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com, panem...@gmail.com, ccha...@redhat.com, phu...@redhat.com, fedora-i18n-b...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Clone Of: 488173 SRPM URL: http://cchance.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ibus-table-yong-1.1.0.20090421-1.fc12.src.rpm Spec URL: http://cchance.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ibus-table-yong.spec Description: Yong table data for IBus-Table which is an engine of IBus. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476471 --- Comment #70 from Jens Petersen 2009-04-20 20:32:56 EDT --- http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/publican/publican-0.45-0.2+naming.fc11.noarch.rpm is a test package with simplified srpm naming. Then fedora publican can have a make target koji-en-US which would submit fedora-security-guide-en-US-1.0-12.fc10.src to koji directly creating fedora-security-guide-en-US-1.0-12.fc10.noarch. BTW I thinking again about the naming: how about we just call the fedora package Fedora-Security_Guide - that would bring it in line with standard publican book naming I think. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496757] Package Review: ibus-table-yong
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496757 Caius 'kaio' Chance changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496651] Review Request: Kazakh hunspell dictionaries - hunspell-kk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496651 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470703] Review Request: links - text mode browser with graphics
Please do not reply directly 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 --- Comment #55 from Mikulas Patocka 2009-04-20 22:42:56 EDT --- Regarding alternate crypto routines --- I couldn't get them working: gnutls returns SSL_ERROR_ZERO_RETURN from SSL_get_error(c->ssl, SSL_connect(c->ssl)) I don't know why, gnutls says that their OpenSSL implementation is imcomplete. nss+nss_compat_ossl-0.9.4 gets a segfault in SSL_new(context) in s = SSL_ImportFD(templ_s, s); So if someone wants to try to make it compile, let he does (and I would accept Links patches for that), for me it doesn't work and I don't care about it much. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488174] Review Request: nimbus-theme-gnome - The Nimbus theme originally from Sun
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488174
Christoph Wickert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@christoph-wickert.de
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #7 from Christoph Wickert 2009-04-20
23:11:58 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> - gtk-nimbus-engine (arch, includes libnimbus.so and gtkrc, requires
> gtk-engines for dir ownership)
Sorry, it's gtk2-engines. And the reqirement for hicolor-icon-theme (not
hicolor-icon) can be dropped since %{_datadir}/icons is provided by the
filesystem package. My bad.
(In reply to comment #6)
> Unfortuantely noarch package cannot have arch subpackage, so
> nimbus-theme-gnome
> must be arch as well.
You can easily work around that by renaming spec and srpm to nimbus-theme,
nimbus-gnome-theme or whatever, as long as it's not nimbus-theme-gnome. The
'pseudo' base package will have no requirements and no files and the gnome bits
will be a new subpackage.
gtk-nimbus-engine, nimbus-icon-theme and nimbus-metacity-theme must not require
nimbus-theme-gnome but contrary nimbus-theme-gnome requires them.
Again you have duplicate files in the files section, because you made the icon
theme own %{_datadir}/themes/nimbus/ which also includes index.theme and
gtk-2.0/{gtkrc,iconrc}. Correct would be
%dir %{_datadir}/themes/nimbus/
%dir %{_datadir}/themes/nimbus/gtk-2.0/
%{_datadir}/themes/nimbus/gtk-2.0/iconrc
%{_datadir}/themes/nimbus/gtk-2.0/*.png
But IMO this is wrong anyway, because all these icons and iconrc should be
installed to %{_datadir}/icons/nimbus/24x24/stock. I will attach a patch to fix
that and then you don't need to care for duplicate ownership any longer.
gtk-nimbus-engine and nimbus-metacity-theme also need to own
%dir %{_datadir}/themes/nimbus/
The gtk engine would also need to own
%dir %{_datadir}/themes/nimbus/gtk-2.0/
but with the patch just owning %{_datadir}/themes/nimbus/gtk-2.0/ will be ok,
since the icons were moved away.
Drop NEWS ("No News") and README (Sun internal info) from %doc.
All packages should ship AUTHORS, ChangeLog and COPYING, this is no violation
of the duplicate files rule but we need to ship this info with every package
(except the gnome one maybe).
The icon theme needs to run the scriptlets from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
for the nimbus folder and include icon-theme.cache as %ghost.
Regarding index.theme: Is there a nimbus-notification theme?
The license is not clear. Is it LGPLv2 or LGPLv2+? Can you ask upstream for
clarification please?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488174] Review Request: nimbus-theme-gnome - The Nimbus theme originally from Sun
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488174 --- Comment #8 from Christoph Wickert 2009-04-20 23:17:43 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=340470) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=340470) Patch to separate stock icons from gtk engine Currently changing the gtk engine will also change the stock icons, because they are linked to gtkrc as an include. This patch makes the stock icons depend on the selected icon theme instead and moves them to the correct location, so icon theme and gtk engine can be used separately. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 495440] Review Request: perl-Devel-FastProf - Fast perl per-line profiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495440 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496757] Package Review: ibus-table-yong
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496757 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496489] Review Request: abby - Front-end for cclive and clive
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496489 --- Comment #5 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-04-21 01:38:44 EDT --- Is that really such a big of an issue? How big are the perl packages? However, if abby fails quietly when trying to use clive, then it might be a courtesy to the user to require also clive. Otherwise s/he won't probably know why abby doesn't work. Anyway, I leave it for you to decide what is sensible. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496777] New: Review Request: perl-MooseX-MethodAttributes - no summary found
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-MooseX-MethodAttributes - no summary found https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496777 Summary: Review Request: perl-MooseX-MethodAttributes - no summary found Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/MooseX-MethodAttributes OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: cw...@alumni.drew.edu QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-MooseX-MethodAttributes.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-MooseX-MethodAttributes-0.06-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: This module allows code attributes of methods to be introspected using Moose meta method objects. Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1310691 Additional Comment: This package is a new BR of Catalyst::Runtime 5.80001. *rt-0.06 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483364] Review Request: EekBoek - Bookkeeping software for small and medium-size businesses
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483364
--- Comment #15 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-04-21
01:55:03 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> All comments from review #12 are applied, although I must remark that I do not
> see why an Epoch is needed. The link is all but helpful, and some further
> reading reveals that 'Epoch should be avoided if possible'...
Ah, I didn't say Epoch must be introduced, what I said is that
-db-postgresql subpackage should have "%{name} = %{version}-%{release}" which
is exact EVR specific, not just "%{name} = %{version}".
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496779] New: Review Request: perl-RT-Client-REST - Talk to RT using REST protocol
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-RT-Client-REST - Talk to RT using REST protocol Alias: perl-RT-Client-REST https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496779 Summary: Review Request: perl-RT-Client-REST - Talk to RT using REST protocol Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/RT-Client-REST OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: cw...@alumni.drew.edu QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-RT-Client-REST.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-RT-Client-REST-0.37-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: *RT::Client::REST* is */usr/bin/rt* converted to a Perl module. I needed to implement some RT interactions from my application, but did not feel that invoking a shell command is appropriate. Thus, I took *rt* tool, written by Abhijit Menon-Sen, and converted it to an object-oriented Perl module. Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1310693 *rt-0.06 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496777] Review Request: perl-MooseX-MethodAttributes - Introspect your code attributes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496777 Chris Weyl changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |perl-MooseX-MethodAttribute |perl-MooseX-MethodAttribute |s - no summary found|s - Introspect your code ||attributes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496777] Review Request: perl-MooseX-MethodAttributes - Introspect your code attributes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496777 --- Comment #1 from Chris Weyl 2009-04-21 02:20:38 EDT --- Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-MooseX-MethodAttributes.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-MooseX-MethodAttributes-0.06-2.fc10.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1310695 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496779] Review Request: perl-RT-Client-REST - Talk to RT using REST protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496779 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496777] Review Request: perl-MooseX-MethodAttributes - Introspect your code attributes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496777 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
