[Bug 511212] Review Request: cluster-glue - reusable clustering components
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511212
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net 2009-07-28 02:00:15
EDT ---
Update:
- Use %global instead of %define
- Remove unused rpm variable
- Remove redundant configure options
- Change version to 1.0.0 pre-release and include Mercurial tag in version
- md5sums now match
SPEC: http://oss.clusterlabs.org/~beekhof/fedora/cluster-glue.spec
SRPM:
http://oss.clusterlabs.org/~beekhof/fedora/cluster-glue-1.0-6.75cab275433e.hg.fc12.src.rpm
I followed the svn pattern for the alphatag, however since letters appear in
Mercurial tags, I added an additional decimal point.
Unfortunately, presumably due to the rebuild, I can't build anything at the
moment.
For this reason, I retained --localstatedir=%{_var} as it wasn't 100% obvious
that redundant.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473835] Review Request: autoarchive - Simple backup tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473835 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-07-28 02:01:56 EDT --- autoarchive-0.1.2-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/autoarchive-0.1.2-2.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473835] Review Request: autoarchive - Simple backup tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473835 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-07-28 02:02:03 EDT --- autoarchive-0.1.2-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/autoarchive-0.1.2-2.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 513797] Review Request: gnome-applet-cpufire - GNOME panel applet showing the CPU load as a fire
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513797 --- Comment #3 from Edwin ten Brink ed...@tenbrink-bekkers.nl 2009-07-28 02:07:18 EDT --- rpmlint has only the following warning on the spec, srpm and rpm: SPECS/gnome-applet-cpufire.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 25) 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. The package builds and runs, so I'll be doing a full review shortly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 511212] Review Request: cluster-glue - reusable clustering components
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511212
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net 2009-07-28 02:31:25
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #17)
For this reason, I retained --localstatedir=%{_var} as it wasn't 100% obvious
that redundant.
I got things building (and installing) again and was able to confirm that the
above does not seem to be passed by default and is therefore required.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478749] Review Request: dinotrace - X11 waveform viewer for electronics
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478749 --- Comment #36 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-07-28 02:42:04 EDT --- Chitlesh, I have tried today to do a test build for EL-5, but it failed: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1547087name=build.log If you can spare the time, please try to fix it. Otherwise I'll try to do it, but I really have no idea when the [free] time will come :( -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 513636] Review Request: php-layers-menu - Hierarchical PHP based DHTML menu 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=513636 Andrew Colin Kissa and...@topdog.za.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Andrew Colin Kissa and...@topdog.za.net 2009-07-28 02:56:10 EDT --- Thanks for the review David, pear packages seem to use the convention php-pear(%pear_name), changing this to the actual rpm package name causes an rpmlint error explicit-lib-dependency. I think patching is a better solution for unbundling, as symlinking leads to an rpmlint error dangling symlink. Thanks again for the review. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: php-layers-menu Short Description: Hierarchical PHP based DHTML menu system Owners: topdog Branches: F-10 F-11 EL-5 InitialCC: david -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 514150] New: Review Request: ibus-qt - The qt support tools for ibus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ibus-qt - The qt support tools for ibus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514150 Summary: Review Request: ibus-qt - The qt support tools for ibus Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: phu...@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://groups.google.com/group/ibus-devel/web/ibus-qt.spec SRPM URL: http://groups.google.com/group/ibus-devel/web/ibus-qt-1.2.0.20090728-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: The qt support tools for 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 513784] Review Request: lxc - Linux Resource Containers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513784 Silas Sewell si...@sewell.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #4 from Silas Sewell si...@sewell.ch 2009-07-28 03:28:07 EDT --- Thanks Walter and Kevin. Built for F-11 and devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 509990] Review Request: openssh-blacklist - Fingerprints of the keys affected by CVE-2008-0166
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509990 Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||yan...@declera.com --- Comment #19 from Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com 2009-07-28 03:36:46 EDT --- (In reply to comment #18) Ok. This still does not seem to have a very good 'required disk space on mirrors' vs. 'expected number of users of the package' ratio, but maybe it's just me. Its not only you. If this ends up in the updates repos anyway (shudder) then please at least do it appropriately: no dist tag, single package/build inherited for the different supported releases. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478749] Review Request: dinotrace - X11 waveform viewer for electronics
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478749 Chitlesh GOORAH chitl...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|NEXTRELEASE | --- Comment #37 from Chitlesh GOORAH chitl...@gmail.com 2009-07-28 04:10:36 EDT --- It is missing emacs-verilog-mode (which does not come out with EL-5 Emacs's version) as BuildRequires. I have packaged it already, but I have no one to review it. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=500931 You would mind step in for this package review of this small 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 511246] Review Request: pacemaker - cman/rgmanager alternative
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511246 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net 2009-07-28 04:00:49 EDT --- Another update: - Incorporate the feedback from the cluster-glue review - Realistically, the version is a 1.0.5 pre-release - Use the global directive instead of define for variables - Use the haclient/hacluster group/user instead of daemon - Use the _configure macro - Fix install dependancies SPEC: http://oss.clusterlabs.org/~beekhof/fedora/pacemaker.spec SRPM: http://oss.clusterlabs.org/~beekhof/fedora/pacemaker-1.0.5-4.c9120a53a6ae.hg.fc12.src.rpm Current rpmlint output: [beek...@rawhide pacemaker]$ rpmlint pacemaker.spec /home/beekhof/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/p*.rpm pacemaker.spec:179: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ocf pacemaker.spec:180: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d pacemaker.spec:181: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d/pacemaker pacemaker.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/pengine hacluster pacemaker.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/pengine haclient pacemaker.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/pengine 0750 pacemaker.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/heartbeat/crm hacluster pacemaker.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/heartbeat/crm haclient pacemaker.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/heartbeat/crm 0750 pacemaker.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/crm hacluster pacemaker.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/run/crm haclient pacemaker.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/crm 0750 pacemaker-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libcrmcluster.so.1.0.0 e...@glibc_2.2.5 pacemaker-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libpengine.so.3.0.0 e...@glibc_2.2.5 pacemaker-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libcib.so.1.0.1 e...@glibc_2.2.5 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 9 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 503847] Review Request: paperbox - A GTK tracker based document browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503847 --- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-07-28 05:02:50 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=355380) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=355380) gcc44 patch, works on F-12 (In reply to comment #11) The package builds for Fedora 10, but not for Fedora 11. This will have to be fixed. Too bad Mamoru has already removed the necessary patch. Ah, I thought paperbox was already imported... Only tested on F-12 i686 (again I just checked if the srpm builds or not) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226568] Merge Review: xmlto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226568
Till Maas opensou...@till.name changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review?, |fedora-review+
|needinfo?(opensou...@till.n |
|ame)|
--- Comment #18 from Till Maas opensou...@till.name 2009-07-28 05:07:53 EDT
---
Sorry for the delay.
[OK] rpmlint output:
xmlto.i386: E: explicit-lib-dependency libxslt
- libxslt contains the binary xsltproc
xmlto-tex.i386: W: no-documentation
xmlto-xhtml.i386: W: no-documentation
[OK] Spec in %{name}.spec format
[OK] license allowed: GPLv2+
[OK] license matches shortname in License: tag
[OK] license in tarball and included in %doc: COPYING
[OK] package is code or permissive content:
{OK} patches sent to upstream and commented
[OK] Source0 is a working URL
{N/A} Sourceforge URL is Source0:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
OK SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}
[OK] Source0 matches Upstream:
12f297dc7051e4fef08339980f88a1dd xmlto-0.0.22.tar.bz2
[OK] Package builds on all primary architectures:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=95375
[N/A] ExcludeArch bugs are filed and commented:
[OK] BuildRequires are complete (mock builds)
(OK) No file dependencies outside of /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin /usr/sbin
[N/A] %find_lang used for locales
[N/A] Every (sub)package containing libraries runs ldconfig
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
[N/A] .h (header) files are in -devel subpackage
[N/A] .a (static libraries) are in -static subpackage
[N/A] contains .pc (pkgconfig) files and has Requires: pkgconfig
(N/A) .pc files are in -devel subpackage
[N/A] contains .so.X(.Y) files and .so is in -devel
[N/A] -devel subpackage has Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
[N/A] .la files (libtool) are not included
[N/A] Has GUI and includes %{name}.desktop
[N/A] Follows desktop entry spec
[N/A] Valid .desktop Name
[N/A] Valid .desktop GenericName
[N/A] Valid .desktop Categories
[N/A] Valid .desktop StartupNotify
[N/A] .desktop file installed with desktop-file-install in %install
[N/A] Prefix: /usr not used (not relocatable)
[OK] Owns all created directories
[OK] no duplicates in %files
[OK] %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every %files section
[OK] Does not own files or dirs from other packages
[OK] included filenames are in UTF-8
[OK] %clean is rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[OK] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[OK] Consistent macro usage
[N/A] large documentation is -doc subpackage
[OK] %doc does not affect runtime
{OK} no pre-built binaries (.a, .so*, executable)
{OK} well known BuildRoot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
{OK} PreReq not used
{OK} RPM_OPT_FLAGS honoured
{OK} Useful debuginfo generated
{OK} no duplication of system libraries
{OK} no rpath
{NOT OK} Timestamps preserved with cp and install
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps
You can fix this with:
make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL=install -p
{OK} Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags})
{OK} Requires(pre,post) style notation not used
{OK} only writes to tmp /var/tmp $TMPDIR %{_tmppath} %{_builddir} (and
%{buildroot} on %install and %clean)
{OK} no Conflicts
{OK} nothing installed in /srv
{GOOD ENOUGH} Changelog in allowed format
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs
For the 0.0.22-1 released the version-release was not added to the changelog
entry.
GOOD ENOUGH Architecture independent packages have: BuildArch: noarch
The tex and xhtml subpackage can nowadays be noarch:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NoarchSubpackages
But this is not enforced, so you do not need to make them noarch.
OK Sane Provides: and Requires:
{OK} Follows Naming Guidelines
Please add 'INSTALL=install -p' to 'make install' to preserve timestamps and
consider to use noarch subpackages. The install issue is minor, therefore this
package is now APPROVED.
Also please consider removing the patches that are no longer used from the
devel branch:
xmlto-libpaper.patch
xmlto-stringparam.patch
xmlto-xhtml1.patch
xmlto-xmllintoptions.patch
(make unused-patches shows you these patches)
--
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 491694] Review Request: anyterm - Web based terminal emulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491694 --- Comment #38 from Alexander Boström a...@root.snowtree.se 2009-07-28 05:03:51 EDT --- I'd offer to co-maintain for EL-5 if I was sponsored. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 503490] Review Request: ayttm - Universal Instant Messaging 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=503490 --- Comment #8 from Minto Joseph mvali...@redhat.com 2009-07-28 05:58:13 EDT --- Hello, Rebasing to the upstream version. http://mintojoseph.fedorapeople.org/packages/newguide/ayttm-0.5.0-1.111.fc11.src.rpm http://mintojoseph.fedorapeople.org/packages/newguide/ayttm.spec Thank you Siddhesh and Parag. Regards, Minto -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225913] Merge Review: irqbalance
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225913
--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-07-28 06:07:57
EDT ---
The package is in so sorrow state, so it doesn't even builds on my machine.
OK,here is a list of issues:
* The package doesn't honours optflags. Moreover, it adds -Os (optimize foir
size) parameter to the list of GCC keys. I'm not sure whether it conflicts
with our -O2, since I'm not keen in GCC tweaking. However, it may be easily
removed at %prep stage (adding of something like that - sed -i s/-Os//g
%{name}-%{version}/Makefile )
* ExclusiveArch directive should use macro %{ix86} instead of i386 i586
* Use Requires(Pre,Preun) instead of Prereq
* Unneeded Requires - /sbin/service
* BuildRoot MUST contain at least %{name}, %{version} and %{release}. See
recommended values here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
Although this directive is obsolete since F-10, I think it's a good idea to
manually specify it, just in case, that the only spec will be used both in
Fedora and in RHEL/EPEL/Whatever.
* No parallel make. See below my suggestions, regarding %build section.
* The long line above should be shortened ( rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT will be
enough):
[ $RPM_BUILD_ROOT != / ] [ -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ] rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT;
* rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT must be in %install section, and not in %build
* Both %build and %install sections are highly exaggerated. You don't need to
manually create all these directories - install utility can do all this work
for us.
* inconsistent use of macros. Sometimes you're using $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and
sometimes %{buildroot}.
* No need to explicitly add Requires: glib2
* No URL tag.
* Summary ended with dot.
* %{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/irqbalance should be marked ad config
That's all issues, I found so far in the spec-file, but there are some issues
in the init-script as well:
[pe...@sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/irqbalance-*
irqbalance.ppc: W: obsolete-not-provided kernel-utils
irqbalance.ppc: E: malformed-line-in-lsb-comment-block #
irqbalance.ppc: W: missing-lsb-keyword Required-Start in
/etc/rc.d/init.d/irqbalance
irqbalance.ppc: W: missing-lsb-keyword Required-Stop in
/etc/rc.d/init.d/irqbalance
irqbalance.ppc: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/irqbalance
irqbalance.ppc: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/irqbalance
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.
[pe...@sulaco SPECS]$
Actually, I'm not sure, whether this package should be started by default or
not, but I'm sure other issues should be addressed.
Here is the spec-file with all my suggestions:
http://peter.fedorapeople.org/irqbalance.spec
--
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 514068] Review Request: parti-all - Software from the Parti 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=514068 --- Comment #1 from Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com 2009-07-28 06:10:01 EDT --- The reason for having the three components in a single source package is explained by the upstream author in README.xpra: Xpra is quite functional now, but Parti and wimpiggy are still under heavy development, so for now I'm still keeping everything together in one tree, to avoid version skew issues. Scratch build in Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1541524 rpmlint says: parti.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/parti-0.0.6/NEWS ../wimpiggy-0.0.6/NEWS parti.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/parti-0.0.6/README ../wimpiggy-0.0.6/README parti.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/parti-0.0.6/COPYING ../wimpiggy-0.0.6/COPYING xpra.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/xpra-0.0.6/NEWS ../wimpiggy-0.0.6/NEWS xpra.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/xpra-0.0.6/COPYING ../wimpiggy-0.0.6/COPYING xpra.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/xpra-0.0.6/README ../wimpiggy-0.0.6/README 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. These symlinks should be OK. The files they point to are in the wimpiggy package on which both parti and xpra have a dependency. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 500931] Review Request: emacs-verilog-mode - Verilog mode for Emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=500931 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-07-28 06:12:16 EDT --- Please upgrade to the latest release (unless there is a specific reason to not do it) and I will do a review, I want to see dinotrace in EL-5... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 513869] Review Request: perl-Beanstalk-Client - Client class to talk to a beanstalkd server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513869 --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-07-28 06:17:19 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i586). koji Build =http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1534328 - rpmlint output messages for SRPM and for RPM. perl-Beanstalk-Client.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 15) == Can be fixed using sed -i -e 's|\t| |g' perl-Beanstalk-Client.spec + source files match upstream url 8a95bef54fe681f25752849e6fce6f0e3e742e43 Beanstalk-Client-1.05.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test gave All tests successful. Files=2, Tests=68, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.03 usr 0.00 sys + 0.10 cusr 0.03 csys = 0.16 CPU) + Package perl-Beanstalk-Client-1.05-1.fc12.noarch = Provides: perl(Beanstalk::Client) = 1.05 perl(Beanstalk::Job) = 1.02 perl(Beanstalk::Pool) = 0.00 perl(Beanstalk::Stats) = 1.02 Requires: perl(Beanstalk::Job) perl(Beanstalk::Stats) perl(Carp) perl(Error) perl(IO::Socket::INET) perl(Socket) perl(YAML::Syck) perl(base) perl(strict) perl(warnings) + Not a GUI application Should: 1) Working Source URL is http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/G/GB/GBARR/Beanstalk-Client-1.05.tar.gz update in SPEC. 2) you don't need following Requires in spec. Yum will auto install it. Requires: perl(Class::Accessor::Fast) Requires: perl(Error) Requires: perl(YAML::Syck) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 505259] Review Request: python-utmp - Python modules for utmp records
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505259
--- Comment #12 from Juha Tuomala t...@iki.fi 2009-07-28 06:20:22 EDT ---
I made it work by having that part in spec:
%build
make -f Makefile.glibc \
DEFINES= \
-D_HAVE_UT_SESSION -D_HAVE_UT_ADDR_V6 -D_HAVE_UT_EXIT \
-D_HAVE_UT_HOST -D_HAVE_UT_ID -D_HAVE_UT_TV -D_HAVE_UT_USER \
-D_HAVE_UTMPNAME -D_HAVE_SETUTENT -D_HAVE_GETUTENT -D_HAVE_ENDUTENT \
-D_HAVE_GETUTID -D_HAVE_GETUTLINE -D_HAVE_PUTUTLINE \
%{optflags} \
PYTHONVER=%{python_version}
Is that okay approach? I communicate with author so that he could modify the
makefiles allowing simpler options without patching them.
f10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1549469
f11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1549509
src: http://tuju.fi/fedora/11/python-utmp-0.7-5.fc10.src.rpm
spec: http://tuju.fi/fedora/11/python-utmp.spec
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 513874] Review Request: perl-Math-Calc-Units - Human-readable unit-aware calculator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513874 --- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-07-28 06:20:02 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i586). koji Build =http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1534316 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url 546e95dc449cdec8410edb6739a5229d5a63f644 Math-Calc-Units-1.06.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test gave All tests successful. Files=2, Tests=64, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.03 usr 0.00 sys + 0.14 cusr 0.01 csys = 0.18 CPU) + Package perl-Math-Calc-Units-1.06-1.fc12.noarch = Provides: perl(Math::Calc::Units) = 1.06 perl(Math::Calc::Units::Compute) perl(Math::Calc::Units::Convert) perl(Math::Calc::Units::Convert::Base) perl(Math::Calc::Units::Convert::Base2Metric) perl(Math::Calc::Units::Convert::Byte) perl(Math::Calc::Units::Convert::Combo) perl(Math::Calc::Units::Convert::Date) perl(Math::Calc::Units::Convert::Distance) perl(Math::Calc::Units::Convert::Metric) perl(Math::Calc::Units::Convert::Multi) perl(Math::Calc::Units::Convert::Time) perl(Math::Calc::Units::Grammar) perl(Math::Calc::Units::Rank) Requires: /usr/bin/perl perl = 0:5.004 perl(Carp) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(Math::Calc::Units) perl(Math::Calc::Units::Compute) perl(Math::Calc::Units::Convert) perl(Math::Calc::Units::Convert::Byte) perl(Math::Calc::Units::Convert::Combo) perl(Math::Calc::Units::Convert::Date) perl(Math::Calc::Units::Convert::Distance) perl(Math::Calc::Units::Convert::Multi) perl(Math::Calc::Units::Convert::Time) perl(Math::Calc::Units::Rank) perl(Time::Local) perl(base) perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(vars) + Not a GUI application Should: 1) Source URL worked for me is actually http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/S/SF/SFINK/Math-Calc-Units-1.06.tar.gz update the same in SPEC. 2) Correct license tag to GPLv2+ or Artistic COPYING file says its GPLv2+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225913] Merge Review: irqbalance
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225913 --- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-07-28 06:25:39 EDT --- Koji scratchbuilds for F-10 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1549518 for F-11 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1549528 for F-12 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1549539 -- 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 514105] Package courier-imap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514105 --- Comment #2 from Aldrey Galindo aldreygali...@gmail.com 2009-07-28 06:42:51 EDT --- yes, my first package in bugzilla -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 508518] Review Request: Meiga - Easy tool for file sharing and content publishing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508518
Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fab...@bernewireless.net
--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-07-28
06:42:24 EDT ---
Just some comments after a quick look at your spec file
- License should be GPLv2+. The source headers says 'or (at your option) any
later version.'
- Requires: hicolor-icon-theme is missing
- ChangeLog, MAINTAINERS and NEWS are missing in %doc
- Wouldn't it be easier for the future just to use %{_datadir}/%{name}/
instead of
%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}
%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/ui
%{_datadir}/%{name}/ui/gui.ui
%{_datadir}/%{name}/ui/%{name}-16x16.png
?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 514105] Package courier-imap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514105 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 514105] Package courier-imap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514105 Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||485401(KyaPanel) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485401] Review Request: KyaPanel - Servers Manager The easy way to admin Postfix and Samba 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=485401 Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||514105 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 514105] Package courier-imap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514105 --- Comment #3 from Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br 2009-07-28 06:49:25 EDT --- looking at your spec file, I can see. BuildRequires: courier-authlib-devel courier-authlib these lines makes your package dependes on courier-authlib-devel courier-authlib, but these packages are not in fedora repos. so If you want to package courier-imap then you need to package the dependencies first. courier-authlib-devel courier-authlib :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512500] Review Request: multimedia-menus - Categorization for the GNOME/KDE AudioVideo/Multimedia menu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512500 --- Comment #14 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-07-28 06:51:20 EDT --- Orcan, are you about to import the package now? IMO the package should follow freedesktop, so you have to ether - change your package or - start a discussion on the xdg-list about changing the specs So far, nothing has happened. Rudolf and me have put a great amount of work into fixing the subcategories [1], so I really think we should stick with a proper categorization. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=.desktop+menu+entry+has+wrong%2Fmissing+categories -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491694] Review Request: anyterm - Web based terminal emulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491694 --- Comment #39 from Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br 2009-07-28 06:53:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #38) I'd offer to co-maintain for EL-5 if I was sponsored. to get sponsored, you need to send something for review, after a package approved you can apply to co-maintain 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 514105] Package courier-imap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514105 Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||486570 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486570] Review Request: courier-authlib - The Courier authentication library provides authentication services for other Courier applications.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486570 Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||514105 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 513797] Review Request: gnome-applet-cpufire - GNOME panel applet showing the CPU load as a fire
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513797 --- Comment #4 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-07-28 06:58:25 EDT --- Thanks Edwin, I will fix the rpmlint error after your review, it's pretty trivial (nevertheless I should not have missed it). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 514105] Package courier-imap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514105 --- Comment #4 from Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br 2009-07-28 06:58:57 EDT --- you can grab the courier-authlib review here https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486570 and continue the work. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 513733] Review Request: entertainer - A simple media center
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513733 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-07-28 07:31:31 EDT --- entertainer-0.4.2-5.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/entertainer-0.4.2-5.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 513733] Review Request: entertainer - A simple media center
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513733 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-07-28 07:33:14 EDT --- entertainer-0.4.2-5.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/entertainer-0.4.2-5.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 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974 Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mschm...@redhat.com --- Comment #5 from Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com 2009-07-28 07:34:27 EDT --- I noticed that Debian now ships opencascade in their main section, not in non-free anymore: http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/opencascade From Debian's changelog.txt: opencascade (6.3.0.dfsg.1-1) unstable; urgency=low [Denis Barbier] * New Upstream Version. (closes: #501128) * Upstream replaced Triangle by a free implementation, thus external-triangle.patch is removed as well as dependencies against libtriangle-dev. * Remove ros/src/FontMFT/*.mft files, these font files have no sources. (As a side effect, closes: #487116) * All non-free bits have thus been removed, and opencascade is moved from non-free into main. The controversial explanatory paragraph which contradicted the terms of the license (by requiring modifications to be sent to the initial developer) is not present in the LICENSE file. (It's still present on the website though. See http://www.opencascade.org/getocc/license/ ) See the *.copyright file from Debian: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/o/opencascade/opencascade_6.3.0.dfsg.1-3/libopencascade-dev.copyright -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459125] Review Request: FreeCAD - An extensible Open Source CAx program for Unix/X11
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459125 Bug 459125 depends on bug 458974, which changed state. Bug 458974 Summary: Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974 What|Old Value |New Value Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|CANTFIX | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|CANTFIX | --- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-07-28 07:42:40 EDT --- Good news. Seems that it's time to re-open this ticket. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459125] Review Request: FreeCAD - An extensible Open Source CAx program for Unix/X11
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459125 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED CC||lemen...@gmail.com Resolution|CANTFIX | --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-07-28 07:44:23 EDT --- OpenCASCADE changed its licensing terms, so it's time to re-open this ticket. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459125] Review Request: FreeCAD - An extensible Open Source CAx program for Unix/X11
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459125 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512954] Review Request: opencryptoki - Implementation of the PKCS#11 (Cryptoki) specification v2.11
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512954 Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #9 from Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com 2009-07-28 07:46:47 EDT --- Package imported and built. Thank you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974 --- Comment #7 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-07-28 07:54:44 EDT --- It should still be checked by Spot, because there were some discussions on the OCC Forums about the details of the licensing terms and Debian's move into main alone is not relevant for Fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974 --- Comment #8 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com 2009-07-28 08:13:21 EDT --- I will update to 6.3.0 in few days so it can be seen by FE-Legal -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 #26 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-07-28 08:21:31 EDT --- Ver. 1.0.0 is out (java plugin still disabled, as well as new plugins for Ruby and .Net/Mono) http://peter.fedorapeople.org/zeromq.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/zeromq-1.0.0-1.fc11.src.rpm Koji scratchbuild for EL-5: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1550083 Koji scratchbuild for F-11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1550090 rpmlint output: [pe...@sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/zeromq-* zeromq.ppc: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libzmq.so.1.0.0 e...@glibc_2.0 zeromq-c.ppc: W: no-documentation zeromq-python.ppc: W: no-documentation 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. [pe...@sulaco SPECS]$ I'll send a note upstream regarding shared-lib-calls-exit message. Other two warnings may be safely ignored, since these two subpackages really don't have any documentation so far. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 513486] Review Request: python-meh - A python library for handling exceptions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513486 Chris Lumens clum...@redhat.com 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 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974 --- Comment #9 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-07-28 08:33:08 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) It should still be checked by Spot, because there were some discussions on the OCC Forums about the details of the licensing terms and Debian's move into main alone is not relevant for Fedora. http://www.opencascade.org/org/forum/thread_15859/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 508518] Review Request: Meiga - Easy tool for file sharing and content publishing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508518 --- Comment #3 from Rajeesh rajeeshknamb...@gmail.com 2009-07-28 08:47:48 EDT --- Thanks for the suggestions! I've updated the SPEC file and rebuilt new SRPM: http://rajeeshknambiar.fedorapeople.org/meiga.spec http://rajeeshknambiar.fedorapeople.org/meiga-0.2.1-2.fc11.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 513292] Review Request: condor-low-latency - Condor's Low-Latency scheduling
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513292 --- Comment #4 from Robert Rati rr...@redhat.com 2009-07-28 08:56:18 EDT --- Can't believe I missed that. Updated package info: Spec URL: http://rrati.fedorapeople.org/condor-low-latency.spec SRPM URL: http://rrati.fedorapeople.org/condor-low-latency-1.0-17.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 514221] New: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514221 Summary: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dh...@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://huff.fedorapeople.org/ovirt-node.spec SRPM URL: http://huff.fedorapeople.org/ovirt-node-1.0.2-0.fc12.20090728194047git15bdc70.src.rpm Description: Provides a series of daemons and support utilities to allow an oVirt Node to interact with the oVirt Server. This package should only be installed on the oVirt Node machine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 514221] Review Request: main package name here - short summary here
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514221 David Huff dh...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ape...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review?, 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 508525] Review Request: gjs - Javascript Bindings for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508525 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|506446(FedoraMoblin)| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 513754] Review Request: moblin-session - Moblin User Experience Startup Scripts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513754 --- Comment #4 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2009-07-28 09:07:24 EDT --- There is already a COPYING file in the rpm so not sure as to the reason for the last paragraph in comment 1 Updated: - made package noarch (not sure how I managed to miss that one!) - set mode to 755 on /etc/xdg/moblin/xinitrc - removed source 12 as they're now obsolete anyway Not done as incorrect: - Mark the file as %config in the spec file. All the rest I think are fixed as part of the other fixes. I also removed the library related components from the spec file as they're not needed either. SPEC: As before SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/moblin-session-0.12-2.fc11.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1550242 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 514221] Review Request: main package name here - short summary here
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514221 Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ita...@ispbrasil.com.br --- Comment #1 from Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br 2009-07-28 09:08:49 EDT --- Can I help with anything ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 513292] Review Request: condor-low-latency - Condor's Low-Latency scheduling
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513292 Nuno Santos nsan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Nuno Santos nsan...@redhat.com 2009-07-28 09:13:44 EDT --- OK, it all looks good now, marking 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 514221] Review Request: main package name here - short summary here
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514221 Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review?, fedora-cvs? | --- Comment #2 from Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us 2009-07-28 09:19:04 EDT --- you can not set cvs to ? until the package is approved and its ready for cvs tasks to be done. and you cant sent fedora-review to ? for your package. the reviewer sets the fedora-review flag, please re familiarise yourself with the correct procedure for submitting a package for review -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 514221] Review Request: ovirt-node - The oVirt Node daemons/scripts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514221 Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||yan...@declera.com Summary|Review Request: main |Review Request: ovirt-node |package name here - short |- The oVirt Node |summary here |daemons/scripts -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 509798] Review Request: armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi-binutils - A GNU collection of binary 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=509798 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |armv5tel-fedora-linux-gnuea |armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnue |bi-binutils - A GNU |abi-binutils - A GNU |collection of binary|collection of binary |utilities |utilities --- Comment #9 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-07-28 09:32:42 EDT --- Ok, after some googling, I suspect that the only proper way is to use unknown as vendor field, since it definitely shows, that our cross-toolchain intended for wide use and not locked to some particular hardware. See also these links: http://www.mail-archive.com/autoc...@gnu.org/msg00969.html http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/embedded/handbook/?part=1chap=3 Here is a brief answer for my question from Ralf Corsepius: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.arm/191/focus=117221 Here are the previous Fedora-related discussions about cross-compiling in general: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/41315 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/56709 Ok, renamed back and updated to the latest main binutils: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi-binutils.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi-binutils-2.19.51.0.14-30.fc11.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 506855] Review Request hornsey - The moblin media player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506855 --- Comment #1 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2009-07-28 09:33:45 EDT --- It seems upstream munged up their versioning so the latest is now 0.2 and 1.0 has been removed! SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/hornsey-0.2-1.fc11.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 509798] Review Request: armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi-binutils - A GNU collection of binary 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=509798 --- Comment #10 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-07-28 09:40:58 EDT --- Koji scratchbuild (in progress, atm): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1550270 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507958] Review Request: eclipse-rse - Eclipse Remote System Explorer framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507958 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||alcap...@gmail.com --- Comment #11 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2009-07-28 09:57:29 EDT --- *** Bug 252223 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 252223] Review Request: eclipse-rse - Remote System Explorer for eclipse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252223 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||akurt...@redhat.com Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #10 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2009-07-28 09:57:29 EDT --- Newer version reviewed and imported from another review request. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 507958 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974 --- Comment #10 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-07-28 09:59:20 EDT --- Even without the preamble, the OCTPL is non-free for the reasons listed in the thread link in Comment #9: Section 7 says: You may choose to offer, *on a non-exclusive basis*, and to charge a fee for any warranty, support, maintenance, liability obligations or other rights consistent with the scope of this License with respect to the Software to the recipients of the Software Except for the part delimited in asterisks, this would be free though annoying. But limiting this permission to a non-exclusive basis is bizarre. Why can't someone choose to offer support exclusively to customer A but not any other customer? A fair number of FOSS licenses have these upstream indemnification clauses, but we don't think we've ever seen one limited to non-exclusive offerings of support and so forth. Moreover, if you read sections 6 and 7 together, you get the sense that they're taking may choose to offer in a very literal sense, implying that 'you only have the following very limited permission to offer services surrounding the software' -- contrast that with, say, GPLv2 which says you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee -- this is intended to clarify what ought to be obvious. In other words, in OpenCASCADE any sort of services offering relating to the software is, in their view, a forbidden 'additional term' unless it's covered under section 7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512674] Review Request: python-iwlib - Python module to interface with iwlib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512674 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-07-28 10:02:10 EDT --- python-iwlib-0.1-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-iwlib-0.1-1.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 513291] Review Request: condor-job-hooks - Condor Job Hooks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513291 Robert Rati rr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Robert Rati rr...@redhat.com 2009-07-28 10:08:14 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: condor-job-hooks Short Description: Condor Job Hooks Owners: rrati Branches: InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 513292] Review Request: condor-low-latency - Condor's Low-Latency scheduling
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513292 Robert Rati rr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Robert Rati rr...@redhat.com 2009-07-28 10:07:09 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: condor-low-latency Short Description: Condor's Low-Latency Scheduling Owners: rrati Branches: InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 513288] Review Request: condor-ec2-enhanced-hooks - Condor EC2 Enhanced hooks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513288 Robert Rati rr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Robert Rati rr...@redhat.com 2009-07-28 10:09:23 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: condor-ec2-enhanced-hooks Short Description: Condor EC2 Enhanced hooks Owners: rrati Branches: InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 513286] Review Request: condor-ec2-enhanced - EC2 Enhanced AMI package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513286 Robert Rati rr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Robert Rati rr...@redhat.com 2009-07-28 10:10:10 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: condor-ec2-enhanced Short Description: Condor EC2 Enhanced AMI package Owners: rrati Branches: InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504261] Review Request: mailody - Simple KDE-based IMAP mail 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=504261 --- Comment #6 from Sandro Mathys s...@sandro-mathys.ch 2009-07-28 10:23:20 EDT --- Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/mailody.spec SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/mailody-1.5.0-0.3.alfa1.fc11.src.rpm Thanks for the review, Ben! I made the changes to the KDE4 packaging-isms :) Thanks for pointing them out so clearly. I also put one BR per line instead of all on the same line (I actually normally do this, not sure why I didn't do it this time). And changed the %files stuff. I will not go back to the latest stable since that would mean KDE3 instead of KDE4 ;) But I'll keep it in rawhide until there's a version that works better. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 513754] Review Request: moblin-session - Moblin User Experience Startup Scripts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513754
--- Comment #5 from Gareth John gareth.l.j...@googlemail.com 2009-07-28
10:20:29 EDT ---
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
reviewOK
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
GuidelinesOK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemptionOK
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging GuidelinesOK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing GuidelinesOK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
licenseOK
MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %docOK
MUST: The spec file must be written in American EnglishOK
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legibleOK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with thisOK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architectureOK
MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch lineN/A
MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optionalOK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbiddenN/A
MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postunN/A
MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blockerN/A
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
that directoryOK
MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listingsOK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissionsOK
MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)OK
MUST: Each package must consistently use macrosOK
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable contentOK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackageOK
MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the applicationN/A
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel packageN/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static packageN/A
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability)N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
packageN/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}N/A
MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are builtN/A
MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your
explanationN/A
MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packagesOK
MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)OK
MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8OK
As far as I see all guidelines are met hope I havent missed anything Jussi.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC
[Bug 458769] Review Request: geany-prj - Alternative project manager for geany fast light IDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458769
--- Comment #2 from Mark Kica mark.k...@gmail.com 2009-07-28 10:22:05 EDT ---
On Fedora 10 i couldn´t build that package
geany-devel-0.17-6.fc10.i386
/bin/sh ../libtool --silent --tag=CC --mode=compile gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.
-I..-I/usr/include/geany -I/usr/include/geany/tagmanager
-I/usr/include/geany/scintilla -I/usr/include/gtk-2.0
-I/usr/lib/gtk-2.0/include -I/usr/include/atk-1.0 -I/usr/include/cairo
-I/usr/include/pango-1.0 -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include
-I/usr/include/freetype2 -DLOCALEDIR=\/usr/share/locale\ -O2 -g -pipe
-Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables -MT project.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/project.Tpo -c -o
project.lo project.c
In file included from project.c:36:
geanyprj.h:51: error: redefinition of 'struct GeanyProject'In file included
from menu.c:36:
geanyprj.h:51: error: redefinition of 'struct GeanyProject'In file included
from geanyprj.c:35:
geanyprj.h:51: error: redefinition of 'struct GeanyProject'
geanyprj.c:38: error: expected declaration specifiers or '...' before '(' token
menu.c: In function 'build_properties_dialog':
geanyprj.c:38: error: expected declaration specifiers or '...' before '(' token
geanyprj.c:38: error: expected declaration specifiers or '...' before string
constant
geanyprj.c:39: error: expected declaration specifiers or '...' before '(' token
geanyprj.c:38: warning: data definition has no type or storage class
geanyprj.c:39: warning: type defaults to 'int' in declaration of 'PLUGIN_INFO'
geanyprj.c: In function 'reload_project':
menu.c:78: error: 'geany_functions' undeclared (first use in this
function)geanyprj.c:54: error: 'geany_functions' undeclared (first use in this
function)
geanyprj.c:54: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only
oncemenu.c:78: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
geanyprj.c:54: error: for each function it appears in.)menu.c:78: error: for
each function it appears in.)
menu.c:78: error: 'GeanyApp' has no member named 'window'geanyprj.c:55: error:
'doc_list' undeclared (first use in this function)
menu.c:87: error: 'doc_list' undeclared (first use in this function)
geanyprj.c:62: error: 'project' undeclared (first use in this function)
menu.c:103: error: 'GeanyApp' has no member named 'window'
project.c: In function 'project_filter_c_cpp':
menu.c:110: error: 'GeanyApp' has no member named 'window'
menu.c: In function 'on_new_project':
project.c:51: error: 'GeanyData' has no member named 'filetype'
project.c:52: error: 'GeanyData' has no member named 'filetype'
project.c: In function 'project_filter_c':
project.c:60: error: 'GeanyData' has no member named 'filetype'
project.c: In function 'project_filter_python':geanyprj.c: In function
'on_doc_save':
geanyprj.c:94: error: 'doc_list' undeclared (first use in this function)
project.c:68: error: 'GeanyData' has no member named 'filetype'
project.c: In function 'project_filter_all':
project.c:76: error: 'GeanyData' has no member named 'filetype'
project.c:76: error: 'GEANY_FILETYPES_ALL' undeclared (first use in this
function)
project.c:76: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
project.c:76: error: for each function it appears in.)
project.c: In function 'free_tag_object':
project.c:100: error: 'geany_functions' undeclared (first use in this function)
project.c: In function 'geany_project_load':
project.c:142: error: 'geany_functions' undeclared (first use in this function)
project.c:178: error: 'GeanyData' has no member named 'filetype'geanyprj.c: At
top level:
geanyprj.c:120: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before
'geany_callbacks'project.c: In function 'geany_project_set_name':
geanyprj.c: In function 'init':
geanyprj.c:131: error: 'geany_functions' undeclared (first use in this
function)
geanyprj.c:131: error: 'GeanyApp' has no member named 'window'
geanyprj.c: In function 'cleanup':
geanyprj.c:146: error: 'geany_functions' undeclared (first use in this
function)
geanyprj.c:146: error: 'GeanyApp' has no member named 'window'
geanyprj.c:152: error: 'project' undeclared (first use in this function)
menu.c:227: error: 'geany_functions' undeclared (first use in this function)
menu.c: In function 'on_delete_project':
project.c:238: error: 'project' undeclared (first use in this function)
project.c: In function 'geany_project_set_description':
project.c:280: error: 'project' undeclared (first use in this function)
project.c: In function 'geany_project_set_base_path':
project.c:306: error: 'project' undeclared (first use in this function)
project.c: In function 'geany_project_set_run_cmd':
menu.c:307: error: 'geany_functions' undeclared (first use in this function)
menu.c: In function 'on_add_file':
[Bug 225872] Merge Review: gtkhtml3 (stalled)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225872 Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CANTFIX --- Comment #10 from Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com 2009-07-28 11:15:44 EDT --- This review is too outdated to continue. Closing as CANTFIX. -- 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 502537] Review Request: vrrpd - Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (Daemon only)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502537 Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fabian.deut...@gmx.de --- Comment #4 from Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de 2009-07-28 11:22:00 EDT --- AFAIK Cisco is holding some patents on VRRP, so can this be part of Fedora anyway? CARP is a patent free solution. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 509990] Review Request: openssh-blacklist - Fingerprints of the keys affected by CVE-2008-0166
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509990 --- Comment #20 from Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com 2009-07-28 11:24:18 EDT --- No. If this is only packaging the fingerprints, *only ship the fingerprints in the source*. Frankly, the private/public stuff should be generated on demand if it's that much data. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 497001] Review Request: auto-nng - A software for analysis and classification of data, using AI NN
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=497001 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de 2009-07-28 11:37:03 EDT --- I fixed - macro usage - compiler flags and debuginfos - added %check, taks 3min rpmlint does not complain. koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1550393 (still free, as of massive rebuilds, should run fine.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 497001] Review Request: auto-nng - A software for analysis and classification of data, using AI NN
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=497001 --- Comment #3 from Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de 2009-07-28 11:54:54 EDT --- koji build went fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 511212] Review Request: cluster-glue - reusable clustering components
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511212 --- Comment #19 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-07-28 12:15:19 EDT --- This looks pretty close, but the release is not quite right. You want a 0. leading there. So, 1.0-0.6.75cab275433e.hg This is so that when 1.0 comes out, it can be 1.0-1.. and update cleanly from the 1.0-0.N.tag Can you spin up an update with that and I will check the other items and confirm... ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 511212] Review Request: cluster-glue - reusable clustering components
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511212 --- Comment #20 from Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net 2009-07-28 12:26:49 EDT --- New SRPM that includes a leading zero when alphatag is defined http://oss.clusterlabs.org/~beekhof/fedora/cluster-glue-1.0-0.7.75cab275433e.hg.fc12.src.rpm SPEC is in the same location as normal -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491694] Review Request: anyterm - Web based terminal emulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491694 --- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-07-28 12:32:24 EDT --- anyterm-1.1.29-8.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/anyterm-1.1.29-8.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 491694] Review Request: anyterm - Web based terminal emulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491694 Mohammed Morsi mmo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 511246] Review Request: pacemaker - cman/rgmanager alternative
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511246 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net 2009-07-28 12:36:57 EDT --- Add a leading zero to revision when alphatag is used. SRPM http://oss.clusterlabs.org/~beekhof/fedora/pacemaker-1.0.5-0.5.c9120a53a6ae.hg.fc12.src.rpm SPEC http://oss.clusterlabs.org/~beekhof/fedora/pacemaker.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 511246] Review Request: pacemaker - cman/rgmanager alternative
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511246 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-07-28 12:41:03 EDT --- Removing needsponsor here, as I am sponsoring the submitter. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 511212] Review Request: cluster-glue - reusable clustering components
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511212 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #21 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-07-28 12:41:00 EDT --- ok, everything looks good with that version from what I can see. Sources checkout ok. a9aba6ae59030a148dd95bfea163852c ./75cab275433e.tar.gz a9aba6ae59030a148dd95bfea163852c ./75cab275433e.tar.gz.orig All items from above seem to be solved, so this package is APPROVED. I will go ahead and sponsor you now. Shall we wait to import this until we make changes to heartbeat? I will try and look at the pacemaker review soon too... if you could change the version there based on this that would be great. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 511212] Review Request: cluster-glue - reusable clustering components
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511212 --- Comment #22 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com 2009-07-28 12:47:10 EDT --- Kevin, Thanks for the review. I appreciate it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 511966] Review Request: zbar - bar code reader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511966 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 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 511212] Review Request: cluster-glue - reusable clustering components
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511212 --- Comment #23 from Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net 2009-07-28 12:50:11 EDT --- (In reply to comment #21) All items from above seem to be solved, so this package is APPROVED. I will go ahead and sponsor you now. Awesome! :-) Shall we wait to import this until we make changes to heartbeat? I think it would make reviewing pacemaker and verifying the heartbeat changes easier if it was already imported (since it would simplify mock builds and make koji --scratch possible). So I'd vote for not waiting. I will try and look at the pacemaker review soon too... if you could change the version there based on this that would be great. Already 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 225872] Merge Review: gtkhtml3 (stalled)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225872 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ti...@math.uh.edu --- Comment #11 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-07-28 12:55:27 EDT --- I still see gtkhtml3 in rawhide; is it your intention to remove it from the distribution? It not, it still needs to pass a merge review at some point. -- 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 493246] Review Request: Shutter -- a feature-rich screenshot program.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493246
--- Comment #26 from Liang Suilong liangsuil...@gmail.com 2009-07-28
13:10:27 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #25)
looks ok, last small things...
1] shutter.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2, tab: line 12)
2] in %install you are creating directory named 0755 in bin/ and share/
Are there any problems? I think it is OK for us.
When i think about it, you probably want to do something else by following
commands:
install -d -p 0755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}
install -d -p 0755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}
cp -fr -p 0755 bin/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/
cp -rf -p 0755 share/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/
if you want to set permissions, you have to use switch -m (for install, cp
doesn't allow this as far as I know)
from this POV i don't think that spec file is legible (incorrectly used
commands)
I'm sorry for lag between my answers/replies, work takes more time nowadays
OK, Thanks a lot.
Do you mean that I should replace cp with install. I know install command only
can install files but not directories. If I replace cp with install, I will
need to write a lot of commands to finish an installation action. I do not
believe that it is a good way to maintain a package.
I remember that you ever told me that mv is illegal in the rule of package
review. I read the spec file of shutter for Mandriva and PCLinuxOS. I found
they are using mv not install.
Here is installation script:
install -d -m 0755 %{buildroot}
install -d -m 0755 %{buildroot}/usr
mv bin %{buildroot}/usr
mv share %{buildroot}/usr
So I think I modify the script to that:
install -d -p 0755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}
install -d -p 0755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}
cp -fr bin/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/
cp -rf share/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/
chmod 0755 -R $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}
chmod 0755 -R $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}
Is it OK? I think that option -p of cp is the same as -m of install.
If it is not OK, Could you help me write an installation script for shutter.
Thank you.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 498285] Review Request: mozilla-adblockplus - Adblocking extension for Mozilla Firefox
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498285
Nick Bebout n...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Nick Bebout n...@fedoraproject.org 2009-07-28 13:12:53
EDT ---
OK # MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.[1]
The packager has explained the reason for these errors and warnings.
[...@nb-desktop SPECS]$ rpmlint mozilla-adblockplus.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[...@nb-desktop SRPMS]$ rpmlint mozilla-adblockplus-1.1-1.fc11.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[...@nb-desktop i586]$ rpmlint mozilla-adblockplus-1.1-1.fc11.i586.rpm
mozilla-adblockplus.i586: E: no-binary
mozilla-adblockplus.i586: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
mozilla-adblockplus.i586: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
YES # MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines .
YES # MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
YES # MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
YES # MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines .
YES # MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
# MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.[4]
YES # MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
YES # MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
YES # MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
YES # MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture. [7]
N/A # MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
YES # MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
N/A # MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
N/A # MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
N/A # MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [11]
YES # MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. [12]
YES # MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. [13]
YES # MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include
a %defattr(...) line. [14]
YES # MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [15]
YES # MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
YES # MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
N/A # MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18]
YES # MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present. [18]
YES # MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
YES # MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
YES # MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership
[Bug 511966] Review Request: zbar - bar code reader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511966
--- Comment #16 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-07-28
13:17:55 EDT ---
For -4:
* Very misc issues
- SourceURL does not follow the following yet:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net
( your SourceURL seems to work, too, however we now recommend to
use the URL style written in the above URL )
* Scriptlets
- Calling /sbin/ldconfig on %post{,un} is not needed for -devel
subpackages.
* Directory ownership issue
- The directory %{python_sitearch} _itself_ is owned by python
and zbar-pygtk should not own this directory.
Now:
NOTE: Before being sponsored:
This package will be accepted with another few work.
But before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate)
must sponsor you.
Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other
submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally.
For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you)
are required to show that you have an understanding
of the process and of the packaging guidelines as is described
on :
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored
Usually there are two ways to show this.
A. submit other review requests with enough quality.
B. Do a pre-review of other person's review request
(at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do
a formal review)
When you have submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other
person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report
so that I can check your comments or review request.
Fedora package collection review requests which are waiting for someone to
review can be checked on my wiki page:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mtasaka#B._Review_request_tickets
(Check No one is reviewing)
Review guidelines are described mainly on:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 502990] Review Request: erlang-eradius - RADIUS authentication/accounting for erlang apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502990 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-07-28 13:22:44 EDT --- erlang-eradius-0-0.4.20070627cvs.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 498285] Review Request: mozilla-adblockplus - Adblocking extension for Mozilla Firefox
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498285 Andreas Thienemann andr...@bawue.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Andreas Thienemann andr...@bawue.net 2009-07-28 13:21:02 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mozilla-adblockplus Short Description: Adblocking extension for Mozilla Firefox Owners: ixs Branches: F-10 F-11 EL-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 508511] Review Request: python-Lightbox - Lightbox photo display widget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508511 --- Comment #18 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-07-28 13:25:42 EDT --- Yes, the license tag should be MIT and CC-BY, and I think FE-Legal blocker is not needed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 505982] Review Request: zikula-module-MultiHook - MultiHook is a simple replacement for the old AutoLinks module for Zikula
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505982 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-07-28 13:23:21 EDT --- zikula-module-MultiHook-5.0-4.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 505982] Review Request: zikula-module-MultiHook - MultiHook is a simple replacement for the old AutoLinks module for Zikula
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505982 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|5.0-4.fc10 |5.0-4.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512272] Review Request: surl - A URL shortening command line tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512272 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-07-28 13:30:11 EDT --- surl-0.5.4-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/surl-0.5.4-1.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 458769] Review Request: geany-prj - Alternative project manager for geany fast light IDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458769 Dominic Hopf dma...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dma...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Dominic Hopf dma...@gmail.com 2009-07-28 13:36:05 EDT --- The geanyprj project is currently not up to date with Geany 0.17. Last changes on geanyprj were on 2009-02-22, I'm afraid it isn't maintained anymore at the present. There were much changes in the plugin ABI from Geany 0.16 to 0.17. To get geanyprj work with current geany versions there has to be much work done in the upstream project first. Feel free to grab it and work on this if you like to have geanyprj in further Geany versions. If you like to do so you will find information on how to contact the Geany guys on http://geany.org/. Otherwise I would recommend to use Geanys built-in feature for project and session management. This actually doesn't have all features which geanyprj might have, but - at least for me - is enough. For this review request in special: The geanyprj version which got packaged here was 0.3. According to [1] this version would just work with Geany 0.14. This actually is *very* old and there was much more work between the plugin ABI versions. This package will definitely not work with Geany 0.17. This might sounds hard but I would recommend to close this issue. [1] http://plugins.geany.org/geanyprj/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 502990] Review Request: erlang-eradius - RADIUS authentication/accounting for erlang apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502990 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-07-28 13:23:04 EDT --- erlang-eradius-0-0.4.20070627cvs.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
