[Bug 479594] Review Request: email - A command line SMTP 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=479594 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #5 from Ralf Corsepius 2009-08-07 03:21:58 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > As a test with make install DESTDIR=tmp INSTALL="install -p" is wrong, but > within the spec, anything behaves correctly (->prefix = /usr). Don't see why. Probably one or more of these: a) DESTDIR must be an absolute directory. A relative dir (DESTDIR=tmp) will never work. b) You didn't pass the options, rpmbuild'ing applies, to configure. > The name email should be ok for me. Not for me - I consider this package's name, the binary's name and the config-files's names to be a short-sighted (silly?) upstream decision. > How could it renamed? * After the author (Dean Jones): djmail, deansmail * After the author's site (cleancode.org): cleanmail, cleancode.org-mail ... Bonzo? If this package was fully supporting autoconf, --program-prefix could be used as escape - Unfortunately this package doesn't. > No blocker, I'd approve this, if I could ;-) > (After the explanation of my the makefile problem, of course^^) Other issues: 1) The package doesn't honor $INSTALL => Besides the fact that make "INSTALL=install -p" is almost always meaningless, it is completely non-functional in this particular case. 2) The package tarball contains autom4te.caches. Shiping only adds bloat to a tarball and is hardly of any use. 3) The package seems to support ssl/tls, but is compiled without it (c.f. configure --help, check --with-ssl) 4) The sources contains excerpts from RFCs. c.f. files: RFC821, rfc3156-openpgp.txt, quoted-printable.rfc Normally RFCs are distributable for free when "being properly credited". I am not sure if this consideration applies to the files as being shipped with 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 505356] Review Request: php-PHPMailer - PHP email transport class with a lot of features
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505356 Patrick Monnerat changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|ERRATA |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 503013] Review Request: gnaughty - Downloader for adult content
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503013
--- Comment #27 from Simon Wesp 2009-08-07
04:18:46 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> SHOULD Items:
> Items marked as SHOULD are things that the package (or reviewer) SHOULD do,
> but is not required to do.
> SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
> package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
>
> This is running. But work very strange - on download page appeared "dead"
> unfinished downloads. On "Delete finished" press some finished not deleted...
> I think you must fill bug on it to upstream. I will not do it as
> stop - problem for review, but if you don't do it now,
> I'll submit bug to gnaughty.
I already sent an email to upstream (no trac or bz). I found more bugs, and
even #504247 is mailed to upstream.
> SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague,
> and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
>
> No.
> In configure you forgot --disable-schemas-install.
> In %pre and %post "killall -HUP gconfd-2 || :"
>
> In %post: "%{_sysconfdir}/gconf/schemas/%{name}.schemas > /dev/null || :"
>
> Please see:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets#GConf
>
1.) Scriplet _is_ sane
2.) It's a SHOULD-item
3.) It's a draft
4.) "%configure --disable-schema-install" and "export
GCONF_DISABLE_MAKEFILE_SCHEMA_INSTALL=1 make install" are equal
5.) and 4.) should be conform to current guidelines
> So, package is very well. Please, fix scriptlets and it will be approved.
as this is
1.) a should item
2.) working
i can't understand your block!
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 503013] Review Request: gnaughty - Downloader for adult content
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503013
--- Comment #28 from Christoph Wickert
2009-08-07 05:01:01 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> In configure you forgot --disable-schemas-install.
Simon already has
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL="install -p"
This is an ether - or thing: You only need one, but not both.
> In %pre and %post "killall -HUP gconfd-2 || :"
This should no longer be used as it not necessary in any of the supported
Fedora releases but only in RHEL 4. I doubt that Simon wants to package this
for RHEL 4.
> In %post: "%{_sysconfdir}/gconf/schemas/%{name}.schemas > /dev/null || :"
>
> Please see:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets#GConf
The official scriptlets as ratified by the packaging committee is at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#GConf
and Simon's uses exactly the same scriptlets as from the wiki.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226152] Merge Review: mod_auth_mysql
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226152 --- Comment #8 from Parag AN(पराग) 2009-08-07 05:04:19 EDT --- I have committed changes in cvs. Can you build new release in rawhide? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226150] Merge Review: mod_auth_kerb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226150 --- Comment #4 from Parag AN(पराग) 2009-08-07 05:03:51 EDT --- I have committed changes in cvs. Can you build new release in rawhide? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226153] Merge Review: mod_auth_pgsql
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226153 --- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) 2009-08-07 05:03:34 EDT --- I have committed changes in cvs. Can you build new release in rawhide? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479594] Review Request: email - A command line SMTP 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=479594
--- Comment #6 from Christoph Wickert 2009-08-07
05:06:21 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> The name email should be ok for me. There already exists email2trac,
> deletemail
> and archivemail.
Thomas, the package name is not (really) a problem, but the names of the
installed files, especially %{_bindir}/%{name}. If every package chooses such
silly names, we would have five different %{_bindir}/%{name} and all these
packages would conflict.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226154] Merge Review: mod_authz_ldap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226154 --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) 2009-08-07 05:06:37 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=356627) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=356627) Modified spec Suggested changes in SPEC file -- 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 226154] Merge Review: mod_authz_ldap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226154 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are 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 226152] Merge Review: mod_auth_mysql
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226152 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Parag AN(पराग) 2009-08-07 05:28:23 EDT --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=126147 Package built in rawhide is now APPROVED. -- 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 226154] Merge Review: mod_authz_ldap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226154 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) 2009-08-07 05:27:28 EDT --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=126144 Package built in rawhide is now APPROVED. -- 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 226153] Merge Review: mod_auth_pgsql
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226153 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Flag|fedora-review?, |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(jor...@redhat.com | |) | --- Comment #4 from Parag AN(पराग) 2009-08-07 05:27:52 EDT --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=126145 Package built in rawhide is now APPROVED. -- 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 226150] Merge Review: mod_auth_kerb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226150 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Flag|fedora-review?, |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(jor...@redhat.com | |) | --- Comment #5 from Parag AN(पराग) 2009-08-07 05:28:43 EDT --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=126146 Package built in rawhide is now APPROVED. -- 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 509445] Review Request: sblim-cmpi-rpm - CIM access to rpm and other information about installed packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509445
Martin Gieseking changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|martin.giesek...@uos.de
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #9 from Martin Gieseking 2009-08-07
05:33:41 EDT ---
Hello Praveen,
here is my review of your package. :)
rpmlint output:
sblim-cmpi-rpm.i586: E: devel-dependency rpm-devel
sblim-cmpi-rpm.i586: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog .0.1-3 ['1.0.1-3.fc11',
'1.0.1-3']
sblim-cmpi-rpm.i586: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin
/usr/lib/libcimrpm.so.0.0.0
sblim-cmpi-rpm.i586: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun
/usr/lib/libcimrpm.so.0.0.0
sblim-cmpi-rpm.i586: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin
/usr/lib/libcimrpmv4.so.0.0.0
sblim-cmpi-rpm.i586: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun
/usr/lib/libcimrpmv4.so.0.0.0
sblim-cmpi-rpm-devel.i586: W: no-dependency-on
sblim-cmpi-rpm/sblim-cmpi-rpm-libs/libsblim-cmpi-rpm
sblim-cmpi-rpm-devel.i586: W: summary-not-capitalized devel files for
sblim-cmpi-rpm
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 3 warnings.
- Add a changelog entry for *every* revision so that the revision history can
be reproduced (revision number is 3 now, so there must be 3 changelog entries,
newest first)
- It wasn't necessary to shorten the description. The lines were just longer
than 80 characters. Split long descriptions to several lines.
-
keys used in following checklist:
[+] OK
[#] OK, not applicable
[-] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[-] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
- see rpmlint output
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: license file added to %doc
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[-] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
- md5 hashes are different
- please use the latest orignal tarball from upstream
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[#] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
- no locales
[-] 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.
- add %post and %postun scriptlets
- see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries
[#] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable,...
- package not relocatable
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[#] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
- no large documentation
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[-] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
- run configure with --disable-static to disable build of static libraries
- see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries
[#] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'.
- no pkgconfig files
[+] MUST: .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
[-] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- add Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} to the -devel package
[-] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
- remove the .la files in the %install section and remove them from %files
devel
[#] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
- no GUI
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] M
[Bug 506833] Review Request: bisho - Moblin web services settings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506833
--- Comment #9 from Peter Robinson 2009-08-07 06:09:28
EDT ---
> > I've needed it for gtk based apps in the past, that's why I added it. I will
> > investigate it tomorrow.
>
> gnome-common can be dropped, I tested it. intltool and gettext are needed for
> the locales, so the only thing left for autogen.sh is libtool. Just move the
> comment down by three lines and it's correct.
Done
> OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described. However I noticed a small
> annoyance: When hovering the close button in the top right corner, I get the
> gtk-broken icon, although I have moblin-icon-theme-installed. Can you confirm
> this? If so, I will look into that
That might be fixed in the upstream icon theme. I will add it to my check list
for the weekend. I'm hoping to have a test spin to play with then.
> Issues:
> "INSTALL='install -p'" belongs to make install, not to make! Should be
> make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL='install -p'
Oops. That will teach me to make changes at 1am :) Fixed.
> The summary still is "Moblin web services settings", you might want to change
> that to to make Jeff happy.
How's "Moblin configuration tool for mojito social network aggregator"
> Please fix the remaining issues. None of these are real blockers, so the
> package is APPROVED.
For reference changes are in spec and here:
http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/bisho-0.10.7-3.fc11.src.rpm
Thanks :-)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 506833] Review Request: bisho - Moblin web services settings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506833 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Peter Robinson 2009-08-07 06:11:40 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: bisho Short Description: Configuration tool for mojito social network aggregator Owners: pbrobinson Branches: F-11 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 506833] Review Request: bisho - Moblin web services settings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506833 --- Comment #10 from Peter Robinson 2009-08-07 06:10:56 EDT --- > > The summary still is "Moblin web services settings", you might want to > > change > > that to to make Jeff happy. > > How's "Moblin configuration tool for mojito social network aggregator" Actually I dropped Moblin from the front. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512020] Review Request: pyliblo - Python bindings for the liblo OSC library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512020 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter 2009-08-07 06:23:34 EDT --- I will fox the three issues before cvs import. Thanks for your 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 506833] Review Request: bisho - Moblin web services settings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506833 --- Comment #12 from Christoph Wickert 2009-08-07 06:26:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) > Actually I dropped Moblin from the front. Hmm, I think it's not bad to mention Moblin in the description. The rest looks good. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512020] Review Request: pyliblo - Python bindings for the liblo OSC library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512020 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter 2009-08-07 06:24:35 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: pyliblo Short Description: Python bindings for the liblo OSC library Owners: fab Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 506825] Review Request: bickley - A meta data management API and 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=506825 --- Comment #5 from Peter Robinson 2009-08-07 06:33:47 EDT --- Further updates: SPEC: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/bickley.spec SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/bickley-0.4.3-3.fc11.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1588735 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 506833] Review Request: bisho - Moblin web services settings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506833 --- Comment #13 from Peter Robinson 2009-08-07 06:35:52 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: bisho Short Description: Moblin configuration tool for mojito social network aggregator Owners: pbrobinson Branches: F-11 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 449393] Review Request: prism - make web apps standalone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449393 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 515280] Review Request: gnome-colors-icon-theme - GNOME-Colors icon theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515280
Martin Gieseking changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||martin.giesek...@uos.de
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|martin.giesek...@uos.de
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Martin Gieseking 2009-08-07
06:54:23 EDT ---
Hello Michal,
your package is pretty clean. The only thing I'm not quite sure about is the
license. The Website mentions GPL v2 but there is no version number given in
README and AUTHORS. Maybe you can ask upstream if GPLv2+ is also applicable.
Martin
rpmlint output:
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
-
keys used in following checklist:
[+] OK
[#] OK, not applicable
[-] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
- while the website explicitely mentions GPL v2,
README and AUTHOR doesn't specify a GPL version, COPYING contains
GPL v2, though
- maybe you could ask upstream whether GPLv2 is required or GPLv2+ is
also applicable
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
- md5 hash is e5b33e067ebfcabafcf8737e2bdb5bcc
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines
[#] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
- no locales
[#] 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.
- no shared libraries
[#] 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.
- package not relocatable
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[#] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
- no large documentation
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[#] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
- no header files
[#] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
- no static libraries
[#] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'.
- no pkgconfig
[#] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
- no shared libraries
[#] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
- no subpackages
[#] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
- no .la files
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[+] SHOULD: Th
[Bug 515280] Review Request: gnome-colors-icon-theme - GNOME-Colors icon theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515280 --- Comment #5 from Martin Gieseking 2009-08-07 06:56:48 EDT --- Concerning the scriptlet check, the last list item should be: [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. - %post scriptlet is valid and sane -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516195] New: Review Request: hunspell-mos - Mossi hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: hunspell-mos - Mossi hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516195 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-mos - Mossi hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caol...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/hunspell-mos.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/hunspell-mos-0.20090806-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Mossi hunspell dictionaries -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 515280] Review Request: gnome-colors-icon-theme - GNOME-Colors icon theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515280 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi --- Comment #6 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-08-07 08:14:42 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > Hello Michal, > > your package is pretty clean. The only thing I'm not quite sure about is the > license. The Website mentions GPL v2 but there is no version number given in > README and AUTHORS. Maybe you can ask upstream if GPLv2+ is also applicable. The first priority is the source code. In this case: $ grep -i license * -R gives a bunch of gnome-colors-common/scalable/devices/gnome-dev-symlink.svg:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/"; /> gnome-colors-common/scalable/devices/gnome-dev-symlink.svg: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/";> gnome-colors-common/scalable/devices/gnome-dev-symlink.svg: so the license is clearly 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 512729] Review Request: perl-IO-Async - A collection of modules that implement asynchronous filehandle IO
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512729 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Emmanuel Seyman 2009-08-07 08:16:53 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > I don't understand the problem, only the spec for 0.22 is available as > http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-IO-Async.spec > (might need to refresh the browser ?) Probably a mistake on my part. Review: + package builds in mock (F12 x86). koji Build =>http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1588755 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url 92cfc798a468e32aa1bd3d85ef1029e1 IO-Async-0.22.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. All tests successful. Files=32, Tests=726, 31 wallclock secs ( 0.15 usr 0.06 sys + 2.45 cusr 0.66 csys = 3.32 CPU) Result: PASS Package perl-IO-Async-0.22-1.fc12.noarch => Provides: perl(IO::Async) = 0.22 perl(IO::Async::ChildManager) = 0.22 perl(IO::Async::Connector) = 0.22 perl(IO::Async::DetachedCode) = 0.22 perl(IO::Async::Handle) = 0.22 perl(IO::Async::Listener) = 0.22 perl(IO::Async::Loop) = 0.22 perl(IO::Async::Loop::IO_Poll) = 0.22 perl(IO::Async::Loop::Select) = 0.22 perl(IO::Async::MergePoint) = 0.22 perl(IO::Async::Notifier) = 0.22 perl(IO::Async::Resolver) = 0.22 perl(IO::Async::Sequencer) = 0.22 perl(IO::Async::Signal) = 0.22 perl(IO::Async::Stream) = 0.22 perl(IO::Async::Test) = 0.22 perl(IO::Async::Timer) = 0.22 Requires: perl(Carp) perl(Exporter) perl(Fcntl) perl(Heap::Fibonacci) perl(IO::Handle) perl(IO::Poll) perl(IO::Socket) perl(POSIX) perl(Scalar::Util) perl(Socket) perl(Socket::GetAddrInfo) perl(Storable) perl(Time::HiRes) perl(base) perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(warnings) + Not a GUI application Should: Test::Pod should be added as a BuildRequires. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516074] Review Request: jide-oss - Swing component library built on top of Java/Swing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516074 --- Comment #9 from Hicham HAOUARI 2009-08-07 08:20:09 EDT --- which location should i use for the doc 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 516074] Review Request: jide-oss - Swing component library built on top of Java/Swing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516074 --- Comment #10 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-08-07 08:23:12 EDT --- What do you mean by location? %files doc %defattr(-,root,root,-) %doc docs/JIDE_Common_Layer_Developer_Guide.pdf -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 515280] Review Request: gnome-colors-icon-theme - GNOME-Colors icon theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515280 --- Comment #7 from Martin Gieseking 2009-08-07 08:31:27 EDT --- I actually did a grep on the source. Can a part of an URI that points to a document really be considered clear? I mean, the link leads to the standard GPL v2 license text that is also included in the tarball. Without further explicit mentioning of the version number I would say that GPLv2+ could also be valid. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 515280] Review Request: gnome-colors-icon-theme - GNOME-Colors icon theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515280 --- Comment #8 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-08-07 08:41:33 EDT --- Judging only from the COPYING we'd mark the package as GPL+, but due to the license entries I would consider it quite clear that it's GPLv2. (The website is circumstantial evidence.) Of course, you can ask FE-LEGAL for confirmation if you want to be really sure. Or even better - ask upstream to add clear license headers to the source files and a note in e.g. COPYING stating that the package is distributed under GPLv2 (only). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516074] Review Request: jide-oss - Swing component library built on top of Java/Swing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516074 --- Comment #11 from Hicham HAOUARI 2009-08-07 08:45:32 EDT --- updated the spec file. Spec URL: http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/jide-oss.spec SRPM URL: http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/jide-oss-2.7.1-3.1181svn.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 515280] Review Request: gnome-colors-icon-theme - GNOME-Colors icon theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515280 --- Comment #9 from Martin Gieseking 2009-08-07 08:55:49 EDT --- Jussi, thanks for your comment. I was just wondering how the URI would have looked like if GPLv2+ was intended. However, I don't insist of a complete verification, of course. If you say GPLv2 is fine, then we can go with it. Nonetheless, Michal already sent an email to upstream asking for clarification. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516074] Review Request: jide-oss - Swing component library built on top of Java/Swing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516074
--- Comment #12 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-08-07 09:07:36
EDT ---
Summary: User documentation for %{name}
Isn't this more like *developer* documentation? :)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516074] Review Request: jide-oss - Swing component library built on top of Java/Swing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516074 --- Comment #13 from Hicham HAOUARI 2009-08-07 09:16:09 EDT --- updated the spec file. Spec URL: http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/jide-oss.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 516074] Review Request: jide-oss - Swing component library built on top of Java/Swing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516074 --- Comment #14 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-08-07 09:28:16 EDT --- Yes, yes, import the package already! And update the other spec files so I can review them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 514833] Review Request: sphinx - Free open-source SQL full-text search engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514833 --- Comment #2 from Allisson Azevedo 2009-08-07 09:39:59 EDT --- Update package: Spec URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/sphinx/sphinx.spec SRPM URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/sphinx/sphinx-0.9.8.1-2.fc11.src.rpm Changelog: * Fri Aug 7 2009 Allisson Azevedo 0.9.8.1-2 - Added sysv init. - Added logrotate.d entry. koji build scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1589151 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458866] Review Request: xls2csv - A script that recodes a spreadsheet's charset and saves as CSV
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458866
--- Comment #6 from Björn Persson 2009-08-07
09:40:14 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> > Why do you use these macros by the way? What value do they add?
> Really now - nothing. But if, when pathes changed - only one system macros
> definition must be changed too opposite direct search/replace hundreds of
> values.
You mean if the commands were to be moved to some directory not in the default
PATH?
If you were to write "/usr/bin/make", and then make were moved to /bin, then
your script would break, but if you write just "make", then it will still work
as long as make is in one of the directories listed in PATH. Moving these
commands out of the default PATH would annoy lots of people very very much, so
it won't happen. Therefore I think writing "make" is just as future-proof as
"%{__make}", and it's easier to read. The macros aren't forbidden though, as
far as I know.
> But ppmbuild don't add next requires:
> perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0)
You should keep that one, according to the guidelines.
> perl-Unicode-Map or perl(Unicode::Map)
perl-Spreadsheet-ParseExcel depends on perl(Unicode::Map), so you get that
pulled in by the automatic dependency on perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel)
> perl-libintl
When I build the package I get an automatic dependency on perl(Locale::Recode),
which perl-libintl provides.
> Sorry, I don't want change tabs to spaces.
Well, if this is what you want others to see when they read your spec, it's
your choice:
http://www.rombobjörn.se/diverse/xls2csv.png
It is a requirement that the spec be legible, but this misalignment isn't bad
enough to make it illegible, so I suppose it's allowed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 515832] Review Request: libtelnet - TELNET protocol handling library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515832 --- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-08-07 09:42:19 EDT --- Sean, would you provide the URL of your srpm? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507110] Review Request: openal-soft - OpenAL-Soft lib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507110
--- Comment #15 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-08-07
09:44:02 EDT ---
Well, would you address the issue in my comment 6?
(In reply to comment #6)
> Some notes:
>
> * License tag
> - For this package license tag should be "LGPLv2+".
>
> * pkgconfig .pc file
> - openal.pc (note: see below) contains:
> ---
> 3 libdir=${exec_prefix}//usr/lib
> ---
> (on i586), which is apparently wrong.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516074] Review Request: jide-oss - Swing component library built on top of Java/Swing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516074 Hicham HAOUARI 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 516074] Review Request: jide-oss - Swing component library built on top of Java/Swing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516074 --- Comment #15 from Hicham HAOUARI 2009-08-07 10:09:46 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: jide-oss Short Description: Swing component library built on top of Java/Swing Owners: hicham Branches: F-11 InitialCC: hicham -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 514833] Review Request: sphinx - Free open-source SQL full-text search engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514833
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Colin Kissa 2009-08-07
10:37:04 EDT ---
Some notes:
* Language API's
- As per the package description you need to ship the Search API's with the
package, as suggested before i think you should ship libsphinxclient as
subpackages (lib and devel) since it is a library
The other languages (PHP,Python,Ruby,Java) can be shipped within the main
package
* * Macros consistency
- Well, if you want to use %{__mkdir} or %{__cp} style, please
use %{__make}, %{__rm}, %{__sed}, etc for consistency.
* Timestamps
- Would you consider using
---
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL="install -p"
install -p -D -m 0755 %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_initrddir}/%{name}
---
for example to keep timestamps on installed files?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 513452] Review Request: mutter-moblin - Moblin Netbook plugin for Mutter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513452 --- Comment #3 from Peter Robinson 2009-08-07 10:53:09 EDT --- SPEC: as before SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/mutter-moblin-0.32.3-1.fc11.src.rpm New upstream release with some various cleanups to the spec file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 510734] Review Request: x11vnc - VNC server for the current X11 session
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510734 Giandomenico De Tullio changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ghi...@email.it --- Comment #45 from Giandomenico De Tullio 2009-08-07 11:06:01 EDT --- %Name and %Group needs one more time... ehm tab. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499959] Review Request: redmine - redmine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499959 David Hannequin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RELEASE_PENDING -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 513119] Review Request: PgsLookAndFeel - Nice looking LookAndFeel for Swing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513119 --- Comment #21 from Hicham HAOUARI 2009-08-07 11:37:07 EDT --- updated spec file Spec URL: http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/PgsLookAndFeel.spec SRPM URL: http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/PgsLookAndFeel-1.1-4.20090805cvs.fc11.src.rpm Description: The PgsLookAndFeel is a nice looking LookAndFeel for Swing. It aims be a very modern cross-platform LookAndFeel with nice features and much interaction for users. rpmlint output : none -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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
--- Comment #12 from Owen Taylor 2009-08-07 11:36:18 EDT
---
xulrunner-devel-unstable dependency isn't needed - at least on F11, jsapi.h and
mozilla-js.pc are part of the main xulrunner-devel.
-devel subpackage requirement on gtk-doc doesn't seem needed. (gtk-doc is a
tool for generating documentation from sources.)
Suggest adding a '%check' section with 'make check'
%description
Gjs is a Javascript binding for GNOME. It's mainly based on Spidermonkey
javascript engine and the GObject introspection framework.
Suggest slight edit:
Gjs allows using GNOME libraries from Javascript. It's based on the
Spidermonkey Javascript engine from Mozilla and the GObject introspection
framework.
One missing BuildRequires noted below, otherwise looks good.(BuildRequires
checked by inspection.)
# MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
OK:
$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/gjs-0.3-1.fc11.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint ../RPMS/i586/gjs-0.3-1.fc11.i586.rpm
gjs.i586: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libgjs-dbus.so.0.0.0 e...@glibc_2.0
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
The 1 warning is ignorable. [Implements standard dbus
exit-on-disconnect-from-session-bus behavior to bring down session with the
session bus]
# MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK
# MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
OK
# MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK
# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
OK
# MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
OK
# MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.[4]
OK
# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
OK
# MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
OK
# MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
OK
# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
OK
# 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.
NA
# 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.
X
Needs BuildRequires: dbus-glib-devel
# MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
NA
# 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]
OK
# 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.
NA
# MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
OK
# MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. [13]
OK
# MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line. [14]
OK
# MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [15]
OK
# MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
OK
# MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
OK
# 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]
OK
# MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present. [18]
OK
# MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
OK
# MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
NA
# MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability). [21]
OK
# MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package. [19]
OK
# MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requi
[Bug 507299] Review Request: network-manager-netbook - Moblin Netbook GUI for NetworkManger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507299 D. Marlin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmar...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dmar...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507299] Review Request: network-manager-netbook - Moblin Netbook GUI for NetworkManger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507299 --- Comment #6 from D. Marlin 2009-08-07 11:54:49 EDT --- I have a question regarding the sources for this package. The comment at the top of the spec file indicates that the sources come from git://git.gnome.org/mutter, but the URL: filed shows http://projects.gnome.org/NetworkManager. The Version: is 1.2, but the latest version of NetworkManager (at the provided URL) is 0.7. Will you please provide some clarification as the to the sources and versions needed for 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 507299] Review Request: network-manager-netbook - Moblin Netbook GUI for NetworkManger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507299 --- Comment #7 from Peter Robinson 2009-08-07 12:01:07 EDT --- The network-manager-netbook component uses a different versioning sheme to the main NetworkManager component. You can see the 1.2 version tag in the git repo here http://git.gnome.org/cgit/network-manager-netbook/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 513119] Review Request: PgsLookAndFeel - Nice looking LookAndFeel for Swing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513119 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 513119] Review Request: PgsLookAndFeel - Nice looking LookAndFeel for Swing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513119
Jussi Lehtola changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review+ |
--- Comment #22 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-08-07 12:06:45
EDT ---
- You are missing Requires: jide-oss.
- Javadoc stuff has been fixed.
- I'd drop the versioning since at least in this case it isn't done by
upstream, as you
install -D -p -m 644 jar/%{name}.jar \
%{buildroot}%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}.jar
install -D -p -m 644 jar/%{name}-jide.jar \
%{buildroot}%{_javadir}/%{name}-jide-%{version}.jar
- Change
%{_javadir}/*
to
%{_javadir}/PgsLookAndFeel-jide.jar
%{_javadir}/PgsLookAndFeel.jar
as it avoids the unnecessary wildcard which is troublesome e.g. when files are
missing.
With these notes the package is
APPROVED
please fix the issues before CVS import.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC 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 --- Comment #13 from Peter Robinson 2009-08-07 12:14:57 EDT --- OK. Updated everything except the make check (as it currently fails). Failed make check can be seen here http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1589495&name=build.log I also added the examples to the -devel package as they might be useful. SPEC: as before SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/gjs-0.3-2.fc11.src.rpm koji build (without make check): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1589521 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 515280] Review Request: gnome-colors-icon-theme - GNOME-Colors icon theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515280 Martin Gieseking changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Martin Gieseking 2009-08-07 12:12:18 EDT --- OK, I just received the email from Victor Castillejo confirming that GPLv2 is correct. Sorry for having been a bit nit-picking. Since everything else looks fine, I can finish the review here. So, this package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507299] Review Request: network-manager-netbook - Moblin Netbook GUI for NetworkManger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507299 --- Comment #8 from Peter Robinson 2009-08-07 12:24:31 EDT --- I've updated the spec file SPEC: As above SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/network-manager-netbook-1.2-2.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 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 Owen Taylor changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Owen Taylor 2009-08-07 12:26:02 EDT --- Do you have: /builddir/build/BUILD/gjs-0.3/test_user_data/logs/stderr.log ? it worked for me in a non-mock build, so probably some mock interaction. Having the make check isn't a blocker, but it would be nice to have eventually. Everything else looks good. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #15 from Peter Robinson 2009-08-07 12:33:15 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: gjs Short Description: Javascript Bindings for GNOME Owners: pbrobinson otaylor walters Branches: F-11 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 513119] Review Request: PgsLookAndFeel - Nice looking LookAndFeel for Swing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513119 --- Comment #23 from Hicham HAOUARI 2009-08-07 12:38:27 EDT --- updated the spec file Spec URL: http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/PgsLookAndFeel.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 516249] New: Review Request: perl-TermReadKey - TermReadKey Perl module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-TermReadKey - TermReadKey Perl module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516249 Summary: Review Request: perl-TermReadKey - TermReadKey Perl module Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: david.hanneq...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://hvad.cfppa-cibeins.com/perl-modules/perl-TermReadKey/perl-TermReadKey.spec SRPM URL: http://hvad.cfppa-cibeins.com/perl-modules/perl-TermReadKey/perl-TermReadKey-2.30-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: This module, ReadKey, provides ioctl control for terminals and Win32 consoles so the input modes can be changed (thus allowing reads of a single character at a time), and also provides non-blocking reads of stdin, as well as several other terminal related features, including retrieval/modification of the screen size, and retrieval/modification of the control characters. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 510969] Review Request: valide - New Package IDE for vala
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510969 MERCIER Jonathan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507299] Review Request: network-manager-netbook - Moblin Netbook GUI for NetworkManger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507299 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516271] New: Review Request: perl-Curses-UI - Curses based OO user interface framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Curses-UI - Curses based OO user interface framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516271 Summary: Review Request: perl-Curses-UI - Curses based OO user interface framework Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: david.hanneq...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://hvad.cfppa-cibeins.com/perl-modules/perl-Curses-UI/perl-Curses-UI.spec SRPM URL: http://hvad.cfppa-cibeins.com/perl-modules/perl-Curses-UI/perl-Curses-UI-0.9607-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: An object-oriented user interface framework for Perl. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516074] Review Request: jide-oss - Swing component library built on top of Java/Swing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516074 --- Comment #16 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-08-07 14:04:45 EDT --- Why no F-10 branch? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 513119] Review Request: PgsLookAndFeel - Nice looking LookAndFeel for Swing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513119 --- Comment #24 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-08-07 14:03:57 EDT --- yes yes, you can request the cvs branch, I've approved the package already. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 513119] Review Request: PgsLookAndFeel - Nice looking LookAndFeel for Swing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513119 Hicham HAOUARI 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 513119] Review Request: PgsLookAndFeel - Nice looking LookAndFeel for Swing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513119 --- Comment #25 from Hicham HAOUARI 2009-08-07 14:12:51 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: PgsLookAndFeel Short Description: Nice looking LookAndFeel for Swing Owners: hicham Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC: hicham -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516074] Review Request: jide-oss - Swing component library built on top of Java/Swing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516074 --- Comment #17 from Hicham HAOUARI 2009-08-07 14:11:19 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: jide-oss Short Description: Swing component library built on top of Java/Swing Owners: hicham Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC: hicham -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476435] Review Request: sugar-record - Recording tool for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476435 --- Comment #17 from Fabian Affolter 2009-08-07 14:20:08 EDT --- Please try again. http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/XO/sugar-record-64-2.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 516059] Review Request: dokuwiki - Standards compliant simple to use wiki
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516059
Steve Traylen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steve.tray...@cern.ch
--- Comment #1 from Steve Traylen 2009-08-07 14:18:00
EDT ---
Hi Andrew,
I think this is still an unofficial review from me. I have packager
status only just recently. I need to check what I can and can't do.
1) Looking at the .spec you have a
cat <%{name}.httpd
# %{name}
...
EOF
I'm fairly sure Fedora says not to do this but I really can't find
a reference at moment,
Instead include an extra source file Source1: %{name}.
And in %{prep}
cp -p %{SOURCE1} .
2)
%post
/sbin/service httpd condrestart > /dev/null 2>&1 || :
%postun
/sbin/service httpd condrestart > /dev/null 2>&1 || :
a graceful will be enough(?) and has the advantage you won't end up
with a non-running server at the end since the config will be checked.
I'd be interested in policy on this situation since I'm working on another
package with the same situation.
3) I would consider moving the sed lines to the %build area.
The %install section should be limited to installing where ever possible.
4) Some trivial RPM errors.
$ rpmlint dokuwiki.spec ../SRPMS/dokuwiki-0-0.1.20090214.b.fc11.src.rpm \
../RPMS/noarch/dokuwiki-0-0.1.20090214.b.fc11.noarch.rpm
dokuwiki.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 20, tab: line 1)
dokuwiki.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 20, tab: line 1)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 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 512627] Review Request: MiniCopier - Graphical copy manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512627
--- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-08-07 14:21:55
EDT ---
- I suggest versioning the java BR and R as for the other packages.
- Fix the .jar and .class clean operation, either
find \( -name '*.jar' -o -name '*.class' \) -exec rm -f '{}' \;
or
find -name '*.jar' -exec rm -f '{}' \;
find -name '*.class' -exec rm -f '{}' \;
- This is silly (doesn't end up in the package anyway):
chmod +x %{name}.sh
drop it. Also use
install -D -p -m 755 %{name}.sh %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name}
so you can drop the chmod line altogether.
- Again, you are versioning the jars when upstream doesn't use versioned jars.
You should drop the versioning altogether as it serves no purpose.
- Don't use wildcards in %files when they're not needed, use
%{_javadir}/%{name}.jar
%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}.jar
- Categories=Application is obsolete, drop it from the .desktop file. Drop GTK
too. And remove the empty line at the top of the .desktop file.
**
rpmlint output is clean.
MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. OK
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines. OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
- You could add -p to the javadoc cp section, but javadoc is anyway created
from the sources.
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. N/A
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. OK
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
**
Fix the issues at the top of the comment and I'll approve.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 509856] Review Request: qrencode - The libqrencode library and application encodes QR Code symbols (2d barcodes)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509856 --- Comment #6 from Bowe Strickland 2009-08-07 14:55:17 EDT --- sed hacks commented, doc files trimmed (duped COPYING only), and obviously went too quickly when examining licenses... sorry :(. updated spec file at http://people.redhat.com/bowe/rpms/qrencode/qrencode.spec updated srpm at http://people.redhat.com/bowe/rpms/qrencode/qrencode-3.1.0-3.fc11.src.rpm thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 503013] Review Request: gnaughty - Downloader for adult content
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503013 Simon Wesp changed: What|Removed |Added CC||redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.d ||e --- Comment #29 from Simon Wesp 2009-08-07 14:56:26 EDT --- added Robert Scheck to CC Robert please request cvs for F-11, create the builds and the update for this package to F-11 after Pavel approved this. I'm on vacation for the next 3 weeks and maybe more! Thank you very much! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 510255] Review Request: cobertura - a Java tool for calculating the test coverage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510255 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ke...@tummy.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-08-07 15:14:59 EDT --- I'll take a stab at reviewing this. Look for a review soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516059] Review Request: dokuwiki - Standards compliant simple to use wiki
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516059 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Colin Kissa 2009-08-07 15:21:15 EDT --- Hi Steve, If you are a packager you can do a full review of packages, except those that require sponsorship. Issues raised: 1. I do not agree, i have not come across and fedora guidelines forbidding creating files from with in the spec file. Take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.desktop_file_creation which indicates you can create the file from with in the spec. Anyway i would prefer to maintain one file as opposed to maintaining multiple files. 2. Fixed. This seems to be a grey area the other packages i have seen use condrestart but i agree graceful is a better way to go. 3. I have moved them to %prep instead i think that is the most appropriate place for them. 4. Unfortunately i cannot fix this due to the sed lines, but this is not a blocker. Updated spec and srpm http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/dokuwiki/dokuwiki.spec http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/dokuwiki/dokuwiki-0-0.2.20090214.b.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 516280] New: Review Request: perl-Config-Model-CursesUI - Curses interface to edit config data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Config-Model-CursesUI - Curses interface to edit config data https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516280 Summary: Review Request: perl-Config-Model-CursesUI - Curses interface to edit config data Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: david.hanneq...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://hvad.cfppa-cibeins.com/perl-modules/perl-Config-Model-CursesUI/perl-Config-Model-CursesUI.spec SRPM URL: http://hvad.cfppa-cibeins.com/perl-modules/perl-Config-Model-CursesUI/perl-Config-Model-CursesUI-1.103-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: This class provides a Curses::UI interface to configuration data managed by Config::Model -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516281] New: Review Request: perl-Config-Model-TkUI - Tk GUI to edit config data through Config::Model
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Config-Model-TkUI - Tk GUI to edit config data through Config::Model https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516281 Summary: Review Request: perl-Config-Model-TkUI - Tk GUI to edit config data through Config::Model Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: david.hanneq...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://hvad.cfppa-cibeins.com/perl-modules/perl-Config-Model-TkUI/perl-Config-Model-TkUI.spec SRPM URL: http://hvad.cfppa-cibeins.com/perl-modules/perl-Config-Model-TkUI/perl-Config-Model-TkUI-1.211-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: This class provides a GUI for Config::Model -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516284] New: Review Request: mod_auth_cas - Apache 2.0/2.2 compliant module that supports the CASv1 and CASv2 protocols
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mod_auth_cas - Apache 2.0/2.2 compliant module that supports the CASv1 and CASv2 protocols https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516284 Summary: Review Request: mod_auth_cas - Apache 2.0/2.2 compliant module that supports the CASv1 and CASv2 protocols Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: maxamill...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/mod_auth_cas.spec SRPM URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/mod_auth_cas-1.0.8-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: mod_auth_cas is an Apache 2.0/2.2 compliant module that supports the CASv1 and CASv2 protocols -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 515206] Review Request: potrace - Transform bitmaps into vector graphics
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515206 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #11 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-08-07 15:56:52 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #16 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-08-07 16:00:38 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-08-07 16:01:44 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516074] Review Request: jide-oss - Swing component library built on top of Java/Swing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516074 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #18 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-08-07 15:59:11 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-08-07 16:03:03 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516148] Review Request: trac-tickettemplate-plugin - Allows for templates in trac tickets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516148 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-08-07 16:04:05 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 506833] Review Request: bisho - Moblin web services settings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506833 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #14 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-08-07 16:07:03 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 509933] Review Request: chameleon - Database schema transformation 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=509933 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #11 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-08-07 16:05:06 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516287] New: Review Request: perl-Config-Model-Itself - Model editor for Config::Model
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Config-Model-Itself - Model editor for Config::Model https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516287 Summary: Review Request: perl-Config-Model-Itself - Model editor for Config::Model Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: david.hanneq...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://hvad.cfppa-cibeins.com/perl-modules/perl-Config-Model-Itself/perl-Config-Model-Itself.spec SRPM URL: http://hvad.cfppa-cibeins.com/perl-modules/perl-Config-Model-Itself/perl-Config-Model-Itself-1.211-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512020] Review Request: pyliblo - Python bindings for the liblo OSC library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512020 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-08-07 16:06:03 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512627] Review Request: MiniCopier - Graphical copy manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512627 --- Comment #4 from Hicham HAOUARI 2009-08-07 16:08:47 EDT --- updated spec : Spec URL: http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/MiniCopier.spec SRPM URL: http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/MiniCopier-0.4-3.fc11.src.rpm rpmlint output : none -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512627] Review Request: MiniCopier - Graphical copy manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512627 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-08-07 16:19:53 EDT --- OK, looks clean. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 515206] Review Request: potrace - Transform bitmaps into vector graphics
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515206 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2009-08-07 16:29:55 EDT --- potrace-1.8-4.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/potrace-1.8-4.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 515206] Review Request: potrace - Transform bitmaps into vector graphics
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515206 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2009-08-07 16:30:12 EDT --- potrace-1.8-4.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/potrace-1.8-4.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 515206] Review Request: potrace - Transform bitmaps into vector graphics
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515206 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2009-08-07 16:29:39 EDT --- potrace-1.8-4.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/potrace-1.8-4.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 516293] New: Review Request: perl-Config-Model-OpenSsh - OpenSsh configuration files editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Config-Model-OpenSsh - OpenSsh configuration files editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516293 Summary: Review Request: perl-Config-Model-OpenSsh - OpenSsh configuration files editor Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: david.hanneq...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://hvad.cfppa-cibeins.com/perl-modules/perl-Config-Model-OpenSsh/perl-Config-Model-OpenSsh.spec SRPM URL: http://hvad.cfppa-cibeins.com/perl-modules/perl-Config-Model-OpenSsh/perl-Config-Model-OpenSsh-1.207-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: This module provides a configuration model for OpenSsh. Then Config::Model provides a graphical editor program for /etc/ssh/sshd_config and /etc/ssh/ssh_config. See config-edit-sshd and config-edit-ssh for more help. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512627] Review Request: MiniCopier - Graphical copy manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512627 --- Comment #6 from Hicham HAOUARI 2009-08-07 16:37:59 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: MiniCopier Short Description: Graphical copy manager Owners: hicham Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC: hicham -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 514602] Review Request: system-config-audit - an utility for editing audit configuration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514602 Steve Grubb changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(joc...@herr-schmi ||tt.de) --- Comment #6 from Steve Grubb 2009-08-07 16:37:02 EDT --- What's the status on this bug? This is blocking release of audit-2.0. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512627] Review Request: MiniCopier - Graphical copy manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512627 Hicham HAOUARI 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 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 --- Comment #17 from Owen Taylor 2009-08-07 16:41:15 EDT --- Peter: looks like Kevin misread the owners in the review request; just ask for approveacls in pkgdb and I'll approve it. (I don't mind co-maintaining the 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
