[Bug 513954] Review Request: HTML_Template_PHPLIB - PHP template system based on preg_*
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513954 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Colin Kissa 2009-08-15 02:46:14 EDT --- The changelog versioning issue is a bug in the rpmlint version (0.85) which is installed on RHEL, the Fedora version (0.87) does produce a clean result. With or without the "-" in the changelog rpmlint fails on RHEL but passes on Fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 497614] Review Request: icoutils - Utility for extracting and converting Microsoft icon and cursor files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=497614 Martin Gieseking changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #8 from Martin Gieseking 2009-08-15 02:45:08 EDT --- Eric and Jason, thanks for your comments. I've opened a new ticket for this package. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 517615 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 517615] Review Request: icoutils - Utilities for extracting and converting Microsoft icon and cursor files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517615 Martin Gieseking changed: What|Removed |Added CC||eric.mo...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Martin Gieseking 2009-08-15 02:45:08 EDT --- *** Bug 497614 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 517615] New: Review Request: icoutils - Utilities for extracting and converting Microsoft icon and cursor files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: icoutils - Utilities for extracting and converting Microsoft icon and cursor files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517615 Summary: Review Request: icoutils - Utilities for extracting and converting Microsoft icon and cursor files Product: Fedora Version: 11 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: martin.giesek...@uos.de QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://mgieseki.fedorapeople.org/icoutils/icoutils.spec SRPM URL: http://mgieseki.fedorapeople.org/icoutils/icoutils-0.27.0-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: The icoutils are a set of programs for extracting and converting images in Microsoft Windows icon and cursor files. These files usually have the extension .ico or .cur, but they can also be embedded in executables or libraries. koji scratch build is successful: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1606341 rpmlint output is clean. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478372] Review request: Mathgl - Scientific plotting 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=478372 --- Comment #27 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-08-15 02:33:51 EDT --- The links do not work. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516849] Review Request: espresso-ab - A boolean minimization 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=516849 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2009-08-15 01:03:26 EDT --- espresso-ab-1.0-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/espresso-ab-1.0-1.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516849] Review Request: espresso-ab - A boolean minimization 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=516849 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2009-08-15 01:03:21 EDT --- espresso-ab-1.0-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/espresso-ab-1.0-1.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478372] Review request: Mathgl - Scientific plotting 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=478372 --- Comment #26 from D Haley 2009-08-14 23:33:52 EDT --- SPEC URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/mathgl-1.9-4.spec SRPM URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/mathgl-1.9-4.fc10.src.rpm Koji Builds: F10:http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1606818 F11:http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1606824 RPMLint: $ cat files Wrote: /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mathgl-1.9-4.fc10.src.rpm Wrote: /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/mathgl-1.9-4.fc10.i386.rpm Wrote: /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/mathgl-devel-1.9-4.fc10.i386.rpm Wrote: /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mathgl-doc-1.9-4.fc10.noarch.rpm Wrote: /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/mathgl-debuginfo-1.9-4.fc10.i386.rpm $ rpmlint `cat files | sed 's/Wrote: //' | tr '\n' '\ '` mathgl.i386: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libmgl-glut.so.5.0.0 e...@glibc_2.0 mathgl-devel.i386: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ sudo rpm -i ../RPMS/i386/mathgl-1.9-4.fc10.i386.rpm [sudo] password for makerpm: rpmlint mathgl skipping line skipping line skipping line $ rpmlint mathgl mathgl.i386: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libmgl-qt.so.5.0.0 /lib/libpthread.so.0 mathgl.i386: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libmgl.so.5.0.0 /usr/lib/libgomp.so.1 mathgl.i386: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libmgl.so.5.0.0 /usr/lib/libgslcblas.so.0 mathgl.i386: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libmgl-glut.so.5.0.0 e...@glibc_2.0 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. These unused-direct-shlibs are simply -config extras, which I believe can be ignored. >For a good model on how to do it properly, look at Octave Forge, the package >containing additional tools for Octave: Octave packaging is done. pkg.m is not fun to work with :(. Note that I must manually use the -1.9.0 versioning as this is what octave searches for (you can see it from an strace, or by tracing the undocumented pkg.m file). >If you have defined the macro correctly, it is >expanded and you don't get such an error. I am unclear why %global octave_api %(octave-config -p API_VERSION || echo 0) is invalid. In any case, I have switched it to use the conditional. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 513954] Review Request: HTML_Template_PHPLIB - PHP template system based on preg_*
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513954 --- Comment #5 from Gary T. Giesen 2009-08-14 22:50:10 EDT --- I also wouldn't bother requesting a CVS branch for EL-4 since it doesn't meet the php-pear requirements. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 513954] Review Request: HTML_Template_PHPLIB - PHP template system based on preg_*
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513954 --- Comment #4 from Gary T. Giesen 2009-08-14 22:45:45 EDT --- You just need to clean up the spec changelog versioning and I'll approve the 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 517366] Review Request: emacs-haskell-mode - Haskell editing mode for Emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517366 --- Comment #3 from Arun SAG 2009-08-14 22:29:18 EDT --- The upstream developer suggested me to use the code in CVS , which contains bugfixes to the previous release.so i updated the spec file. Link to the spec file: http://sagarun.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/emacs-haskell-mode.spec Link to the SRPM: http://sagarun.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/emacs-haskell-mode-2.4-3.20091015cvs.fc11.src.rpm Links to successful koji builds: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1606727 -fedora 10 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1606744 -fedora 11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 513954] Review Request: HTML_Template_PHPLIB - PHP template system based on preg_*
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513954
Gary T. Giesen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||gie...@snickers.org
--- Comment #3 from Gary T. Giesen 2009-08-14 22:27:29
EDT ---
# MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
NEEDSWORK
rpmlint php-pear-HTML_Template_PHPLIB-1.4.0-2.el5.noarch.rpm
php-pear-HTML_Template_PHPLIB.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog
1.4.0-2 1.4.0-2.el5
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
You should change "* Mon Jul 27 2009 Andrew Colin Kissa
- 1.4.0-2"
to "* Mon Jul 27 2009 Andrew Colin Kissa 1.4.0-2"
(remove the dash/hyphen) so that that the version can be properly parsed
# 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.
OK
# MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK
# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
OK
# MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
OK
# MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
N/A
# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK
# MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK
# MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
OK
# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK
# MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines
OK
# MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
N/A
# MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
N/A
# MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
N/A
# MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
OK
# MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK
# MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK
# MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK
# MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK
# MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK
# MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
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.
OK
# MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
N/A
# MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
N/A
# MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
N/A
# MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
N/A
# MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
N/A
# MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
N/A
# MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
N/A
# MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that yo
[Bug 513954] Review Request: HTML_Template_PHPLIB - PHP template system based on preg_*
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513954 Gary T. Giesen 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 517409] Review Request: django-authority - A Django app for generic per-object permissions and custom permission checks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517409 Allisson Azevedo changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Allisson Azevedo 2009-08-14 22:28:14 EDT --- It's good for me :) 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 515034] Review Request: nss-softokn - Cryptographic Module of NSS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515034 Elio Maldonado Batiz changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(emald...@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #20 from Elio Maldonado Batiz 2009-08-14 22:16:34 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19) Moving the post unstall macro to the top fixes the rpmlint warning rpmlint nss-softokn.spec gives 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Updated nss-softokn.spec file and made a new source rpm, this latter at http://fedorapeople.org/~emaldonado/nss-softokn/devel/nss-softokn-3.12.3.99.3-8.fc12..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 514540] Review Request: papyon - Python libraries for MSN Messenger network
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514540 Brian Pepple changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #6 from Brian Pepple 2009-08-14 22:15:39 EDT --- Imported and built. Thanks for the 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 517412] Review Request: django-profile - Django pluggable user profile zone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517412 Allisson Azevedo changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Allisson Azevedo 2009-08-14 22:12:46 EDT --- It's ok now :) APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 517409] Review Request: django-authority - A Django app for generic per-object permissions and custom permission checks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517409 --- Comment #5 from Diego Búrigo Zacarão 2009-08-14 20:35:35 EDT --- I added in %doc the docs/build/html instead. Spec URL: http://diegobz.fedorapeople.org/packages/django-authority/django-authority.spec SRPM URL: http://diegobz.fedorapeople.org/packages/django-authority/django-authority-0.3-2.fc11.src.rpm %changelog * Fri Aug 14 2009 Diego Búrigo Zacarão 0.3-2 (...) - Added only HTML built doc files from docs dir - Added some missed doc files like AUTHORS - Clean up .builinfo files -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 517412] Review Request: django-profile - Django pluggable user profile zone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517412 --- Comment #7 from Diego Búrigo Zacarão 2009-08-14 19:56:13 EDT --- Ops... didn't know about it. :) Spec URL: http://diegobz.fedorapeople.org/packages/django-profile/django-profile.spec SRPM URL: http://diegobz.fedorapeople.org/packages/django-profile/django-profile-0.6-0.2.20090813svnr420.fc11.src.rpm %changelog * Fri Aug 14 2009 Diego Búrigo Zacarão 0.6-0.2.20090813svnr420 (...) - Excluded demo app from python path -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516311] Review Request: ueagle-atm-firmware123 - Firmwares for usb adsl modems based on Eagle I, II and III chipsets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516311 --- Comment #2 from Hicham HAOUARI 2009-08-14 19:18:53 EDT --- I think I confused it with the license for the package : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516312 , thinking that both have the same license. I sent a mail to the firmwares vendor asking them for a clear license. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483863] Review Request: g3dviewer - A 3D file/object viewer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483863 --- Comment #6 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-08-14 18:43:57 EDT --- Fooled me too, didn't check carefully enough :D Joshua: please do the full review. You need to build the dependency first and build this package using it. It's possible in mock by making a local repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483863] Review Request: g3dviewer - A 3D file/object viewer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483863 --- Comment #5 from Joshua Rosen 2009-08-14 18:34:02 EDT --- I mistook the library for the application. It specifies libg3d for the 2009 releases whereas the 2006 releases just say Preview edition. I assumed they were the same but I was 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 483863] Review Request: g3dviewer - A 3D file/object viewer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483863 --- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter 2009-08-14 18:24:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Also wouldn't it be better to submit a package based on a recent version of > this program? On > the upstream site the current version is 0.8, this is for 0.2.99.4 which is > from 2006. I can't find any details on the upstream website that 0.2.99.4 isn't the latest release. libg3d 0.0.8 was released at 2009-01-19. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483859] Review Request: libg3d - Library for 3D file/object viewer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483859 --- Comment #5 from Fabian Affolter 2009-08-14 18:19:24 EDT --- Thanks guys, here are the updated files: SPEC: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/libg3d.spec SRPM: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/libg3d-0.0.8-2.fc11.src.rpm I guess that the rpath issue is fixed. [...@-- x86_64]$ rpmlint libg3d* 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 502130] Review Request: openocd - Open On-Chip Debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502130 --- Comment #10 from Dean Glazeski 2009-08-14 17:44:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) > Is there any reason you are shipping static libraries ? That's my bad. I didn't see the information on static libraries in the packaging guidelines. There is an option to build a shared object instead, but when I do that I get the following warnings from rpmlint: openocd.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libopenocd.so.0.0.0 e...@glibc_2.2.5 openocd.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libopenocd.so I've removed 2 errors that have already been resolved as documented in the spec file. I'm not sure what to do with the unversioned shared object. According to the guidelines, this should be in the devel package. Should I just remove the symlink? Here are links to the version of the spec file that builds a shared object instead of a static library. http://files.dinoprojects.com/openocd/openocd-0.2.0-2.fc11.src.rpm http://files.dinoprojects.com/openocd/openocd.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 497614] Review Request: icoutils - Utility for extracting and converting Microsoft icon and cursor files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=497614 --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-08-14 17:45:15 EDT --- Martin, if you want to submit this, please open your own review ticket and close this one as a duplicate. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 515034] Review Request: nss-softokn - Cryptographic Module of NSS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515034
Bob Relyea changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||needinfo?(emald...@redhat.c
||om)
--- Comment #19 from Bob Relyea 2009-08-14 17:25:26 EDT
---
RPMLINT:
rpmlint nss-softokn.spec
nss-softokn.spec:171: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{unsupported_tools_directory}/shlibsign -i
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_lib}/libsoftokn3.so \
nss-softokn.spec:172: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{unsupported_tools_directory}/shlibsign -i
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_lib}/libfreebl3.so \
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
NEEDSWORK: Some minor issues...
1. Remove the .test.1 from the version string. For test builds, you can use
~/.rpmmacros to set dist to your own test string (f12.elio.test for instance).
2. in the comment on getting the source you describe cvs nss-util, I think you
mean cvs co nss-util. Also the directory name can be confused with the nss-util
package perhaps the name nss-package-tools would be better.
3. A comment that the 'special install-post command actually gets executed as
the last stip in the %install (so that the code operates on the stripped
libraries). Also, I believe the %define needs to be a %global.
bob
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483863] Review Request: g3dviewer - A 3D file/object viewer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483863 --- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-08-14 17:25:27 EDT --- Fabian: please update to newest version available. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483863] Review Request: g3dviewer - A 3D file/object viewer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483863 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jussi.leht...@iki.fi Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-08-14 17:17:45 EDT --- Joshua: this bug depends on bug 483859, i.e. libg3d. Taking over 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 517412] Review Request: django-profile - Django pluggable user profile zone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517412
--- Comment #6 from Allisson Azevedo 2009-08-14 17:11:42
EDT ---
Well,
You added demo/ in %doc but still here in
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/demo/ :)
Modify %files section and add a %exclude like this:
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc INSTALL.txt CHANGELOG.txt LICENSE.txt README.txt TODO.txt demo/
%{python_sitelib}/*
%exclude %{python_sitelib}/demo
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 517409] Review Request: django-authority - A Django app for generic per-object permissions and custom permission checks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517409 --- Comment #4 from Allisson Azevedo 2009-08-14 16:44:57 EDT --- BAD: * rpmlint: django-authority.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/django-authority-0.3/docs/.static django-authority.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/django-authority-0.3/docs/.static django-authority.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/django-authority-0.3/docs/build/html/.buildinfo django-authority.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/django-authority-0.3/docs/.theme django-authority.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/django-authority-0.3/docs/.theme 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. I suggest remove docs/ for %doc section, these docs are build with python-sphinx, but, using command for build (python setup.py build_sphinx) fails on my F-11. * %doc section: Please add AUTHORS, LICENSE and README in %doc section. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481030] Review Request: pmd-emacs - an interface to PMD for (X)Emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481030 --- Comment #4 from Joshua Rosen 2009-08-14 16:44:32 EDT --- I've just submitted some comments on 483863. I'm blocked by a missing -devel package. I'm not sure where to get it. I didn't get any rpmlint errors on the pmd package rpmlint pmd-emacs.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 497614] Review Request: icoutils - Utility for extracting and converting Microsoft icon and cursor files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=497614 --- Comment #6 from Eric Moret 2009-08-14 16:44:54 EDT --- Feel free to take it over. In the mean time and for what it's worth I found out that Alchemy could do the same icon extracting job as icoutils. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 517191] Review Request: php-symfony-symfony - Open-Source PHP Web 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=517191 --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-08-14 16:39:20 EDT --- I would certainly not approve a package at is with bundled libraries. The packaging guidelines say this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bundling_of_multiple_projects and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/No_Bundled_Libraries. Perhaps some other reviewer feels differently. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483863] Review Request: g3dviewer - A 3D file/object viewer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483863
Joshua Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bjro...@polybus.com
--- Comment #1 from Joshua Rosen 2009-08-14 16:38:55 EDT
---
This is an informal review, I'm just learning the packaging process.
I can't find libg3d-devel in any repository, where do I get it from?
Also wouldn't it be better to submit a package based on a recent version of
this program? On
the upstream site the current version is 0.8, this is for 0.2.99.4 which is
from 2006.
# MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.[1] OK
/home/bjrosen/rpmbuild/SPECS> rpmlint g3dviewer.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# 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 . ??
# 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: 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 **
This is a 3 year old version, the current version is 0.0.8. Wouldn't it be
better to submit a current package?"
# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. ??
# MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ??
# MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires ??
# MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. ??
# 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: If the package is designed to be 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. OK
# MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, OK
# MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK
# MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK
# MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK
# MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. ??
# MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. ??
# MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. ??
# MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. ??
# MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability). ??
# MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package. ??
# MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} OK
# MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.??
# MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. OK
# MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. OK
# MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK
# MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 OK
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 506174] Review Request: qtdmm - a digital multimeter readout software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506174 Chitlesh GOORAH changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Chitlesh GOORAH 2009-08-14 16:34:48 EDT --- Approved. Please give me your FAS username so that I can sponsor you. Please read the rest of the packaging procedure to push Qtdmm to the repositories: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Add_Package_to_CVS_and_Set_Owner -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 517412] Review Request: django-profile - Django pluggable user profile zone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517412 --- Comment #5 from Diego Búrigo Zacarão 2009-08-14 16:33:27 EDT --- Updated! Spec URL: http://diegobz.fedorapeople.org/packages/django-profile/django-profile.spec SRPM URL: http://diegobz.fedorapeople.org/packages/django-profile/django-profile-0.6-0.2.20090813svnr420.fc11.src.rpm * Fri Aug 14 2009 Diego Búrigo Zacarão 0.6-0.2.20090813svnr420 (...) - Moved demo app to docs -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 502130] Review Request: openocd - Open On-Chip Debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502130 --- Comment #9 from Chitlesh GOORAH 2009-08-14 16:25:54 EDT --- Is there any reason you are shipping static libraries ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 497614] Review Request: icoutils - Utility for extracting and converting Microsoft icon and cursor files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=497614 Martin Gieseking changed: What|Removed |Added CC||martin.giesek...@uos.de --- Comment #5 from Martin Gieseking 2009-08-14 16:29:19 EDT --- Spec URL: http://mgieseki.fedorapeople.org/icoutils/icoutils.spec SRPM URL: http://mgieseki.fedorapeople.org/icoutils/icoutils-0.27.0-1.fc11.src.rpm I've updated the package to the latest upstream release and fixed a build error occurred on ppc architectures. Eric, if you're no longer interested in maintaining this package, I could take it over. koji scratch build is successful: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1606341 rpmlint output is clean. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481030] Review Request: pmd-emacs - an interface to PMD for (X)Emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481030
--- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-08-14 16:17:58
EDT ---
Joshua: rpmlint is not silent.
pmd-emacs-el.noarch: W: no-documentation
pmd-xemacs-el.noarch: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
These are, however, OK.
**
As an (X)Emacs package, the Emacs guidelines are applied.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Emacs
The name of the package is incorrect, it should be emacs-common-pmd, and the
names of the other packages should be {x,}emacs-pmd{,-el}.
See e.g.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Emacs#Template_for_a_package_for_both_GNU_Emacs_and_XEmacs
**
If you're using a space to separate BR:s, don't use a comma in
Requires: xemacs(bin) >= %{xemacs_version}, xemacs-packages-extra
As %install is a bit long, you could add additional space around it.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 508922] Review Request: system-config-selinux - GUI Code for system-config-selinux, polgen, and lockdown
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508922 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: scselinux - |Review Request: |GUI Code for|system-config-selinux - GUI |system-config-selinux, |Code for |polgen, and lockdown|system-config-selinux, ||polgen, and lockdown -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 517412] Review Request: django-profile - Django pluggable user profile zone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517412 --- Comment #4 from Allisson Azevedo 2009-08-14 15:57:31 EDT --- BAD: * rpmlint django-profile.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/demo/manage.py 0644 /usr/bin/env 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. I think this demo program at (/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/demo/) should be moved to docs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504424] Review Request: rubygem-json - A JSON implementation in Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504424 Xavier Lamien changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #15 from Xavier Lamien 2009-08-14 15:36:48 EDT --- Imported and built. Thx guys. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 #12 from Peter Robinson 2009-08-14 15:28:26 EDT --- I've now reviewed the outstanding items and I think they're all fixed. Patch from upstream for the license applied and patch for the pgkconfig issue. SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/bickley-0.4.3-5.fc11.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1606207 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 517300] Rename Request: ccss - A simple api for CSS Stylesheets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517300 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #4 from Peter Robinson 2009-08-14 15:26:28 EDT --- Thanks for the 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 517412] Review Request: django-profile - Django pluggable user profile zone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517412 --- Comment #3 from Diego Búrigo Zacarão 2009-08-14 15:04:32 EDT --- Spec URL: http://diegobz.fedorapeople.org/packages/django-profile/django-profile.spec SRPM URL: http://diegobz.fedorapeople.org/packages/django-profile/django-profile-0.6-0.2.20090813svnr420.fc11.src.rpm * Fri Aug 14 2009 Diego Búrigo Zacarão 0.6-0.2.20090813svnr420 - Added docs - Fixed version in the previous changelog - Fixed License to BSD based on the LICENSE.txt file Is it enough to change the license to BSD? I've opened a ticket upstream though. http://code.google.com/p/django-profile/issues/detail?id=64 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 515034] Review Request: nss-softokn - Cryptographic Module of NSS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515034 Elio Maldonado Batiz changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #356903|0 |1 is obsolete|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 515034] Review Request: nss-softokn - Cryptographic Module of NSS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515034 Elio Maldonado Batiz changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|jkeat...@redhat.com |rrel...@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 515034] Review Request: nss-softokn - Cryptographic Module of NSS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515034 --- Comment #18 from Elio Maldonado Batiz 2009-08-14 14:42:58 EDT --- Bob, nss-softokn is ready for review, I have updated the files at Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~emaldonado/nss-softokn/devel/nss-softkn.spec and SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~emaldonado/nss-softokn/devel/nss-softokn-3.12.3.99.3-8.fc12.test.1.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 471231] Review Request: WebCalendar - Single/multi-user web-based calendar application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471231 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|182235(FE-Legal)| --- Comment #24 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-08-14 14:42:03 EDT --- Lifting FE-Legal. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516971] Review Request: tokyotyrant - A network interface to Tokyo Cabinet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516971
Mamoru Tasaka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-08-14
14:39:45 EDT ---
Some notes:
! About tokyocabinet dependency
- Note that current latest package of tokyocabinet on koji
is tokyocabinet-1.4.30-1.fc12
( This already exists in koji dist-f12 buildroot, but has not
pushed to rawhide tree yet because of F12alpha freeze )
* Package name
- Usually development related package should be named as
"tokyotyrant-devel", not "tokyotyrant-libs-devel" (even if
you create tokyotyrant-libs package)
* About removing rpath
- Please avoid to use "chrpath" binary as much as possible
for removing rpath but use more "standard" method
( Using chrpath --delete should be thought as the last
resort, which is usually not needed ).
For this package replacing "LD_RUN_PATH" with "LD_LIBRARY_PATH"
should remove rpath without using chrpath
* Macros
- Use %_initddir for %_sysconfdir/rc.d/init.d
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScripts#Initscripts_on_the_filesystem
* About %_libdir/ttskel*.so
- Would you explain how these binaries are used?
* Actually these binaries don't have sonames, don't have the names
"libfoo.so",
so these don't seem to be system-wide libraries.
I suggest at least these libraries should be moved to package-specific
directory (like %_libdir/%name)
* Also I tried to find out how these binaries are used by using grep,
however
it seems these binaries are used nowhere...
* %files
- You don't have to add "COPYING" to all binary packages (only including
to -libs package is enough because -libs package is needed by all
packages)
By the way README, THANKS or so should also be moved to -libs subpackage
because tokyotyrant (binary rpm) depends on -libs subpackage and not
opposite.
* Dependency
- Main package must have strict dependency
"Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release}"
- For example installed /usr/include/tcrdb.h contains:
---
30 #include
31 #include
---
so at least tokyotyrant-devel should have "Requires: tokyocabinet-devel".
And tokyotyrant.pc should have "Requires: tokyocabinet".
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471231] Review Request: WebCalendar - Single/multi-user web-based calendar application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471231 --- Comment #23 from Patrick Monnerat 2009-08-14 14:36:24 EDT --- OK, thanks for the info. So here we are: New version: http://monnerat.fedorapeople.org/WebCalendar-1.2.0-8.fc10.src.rpm * Fri Aug 14 2009 Patrick Monnerat 1.2.0-8 - Use a custom source tarball to get rid of upstream icons with license issue. rpmlint output unchanged. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1605649 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516364] Review Request: xrdp - Open source remote desktop protocol (RDP) 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=516364 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System 2009-08-14 14:38:03 EDT --- xrdp-0.5.0-0.2.20090811cvs.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xrdp-0.5.0-0.2.20090811cvs.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 516364] Review Request: xrdp - Open source remote desktop protocol (RDP) 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=516364 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System 2009-08-14 14:38:09 EDT --- xrdp-0.5.0-0.2.20090811cvs.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xrdp-0.5.0-0.2.20090811cvs.el4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516364] Review Request: xrdp - Open source remote desktop protocol (RDP) 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=516364 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System 2009-08-14 14:36:45 EDT --- xrdp-0.5.0-0.2.20090811cvs.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xrdp-0.5.0-0.2.20090811cvs.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 516364] Review Request: xrdp - Open source remote desktop protocol (RDP) 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=516364 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System 2009-08-14 14:36:39 EDT --- xrdp-0.5.0-0.2.20090811cvs.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xrdp-0.5.0-0.2.20090811cvs.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 517409] Review Request: django-authority - A Django app for generic per-object permissions and custom permission checks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517409 --- Comment #3 from Diego Búrigo Zacarão 2009-08-14 14:34:56 EDT --- Ops! Spec URL: http://diegobz.fedorapeople.org/packages/django-authority/django-authority.spec SRPM URL: http://diegobz.fedorapeople.org/packages/django-authority/django-authority-0.3-2.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 517410] Review Request: django-piston - A mini-framework for Django for creating RESTful APIs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517410 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2009-08-14 14:18:34 EDT --- django-piston-0.2.2-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/django-piston-0.2.2-1.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 517410] Review Request: django-piston - A mini-framework for Django for creating RESTful APIs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517410 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System 2009-08-14 14:18:29 EDT --- django-piston-0.2.2-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/django-piston-0.2.2-1.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 516547] Review Request: Django-south - Intelligent schema migrations for Django apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516547 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2009-08-14 14:14:37 EDT --- Django-south-0.6-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/Django-south-0.6-2.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516547] Review Request: Django-south - Intelligent schema migrations for Django apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516547 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2009-08-14 14:14:42 EDT --- Django-south-0.6-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/Django-south-0.6-2.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 512021] Review Request: zikula-module-advanced_polls - Advanced voting system for Zikula
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512021 Nick Bebout changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||n...@fedoraproject.org AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|n...@fedoraproject.org Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Nick Bebout 2009-08-14 14:07:50 EDT --- I'll try to do this this weekend. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516698] Review Request: fpaste - A simple tool for pasting info onto fpaste.org
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516698 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2009-08-14 13:58:39 EDT --- fpaste-0.3.2-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fpaste-0.3.2-2.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471231] Review Request: WebCalendar - Single/multi-user web-based calendar application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471231 --- Comment #22 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-08-14 14:03:09 EDT --- Ah, I see. You're fine to keep the naming and versioning the same as if it was a normal package, just leave the "clean" off it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 514540] Review Request: papyon - Python libraries for MSN Messenger network
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514540 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-08-14 13:55:10 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 516364] Review Request: xrdp - Open source remote desktop protocol (RDP) 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=516364 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #16 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-08-14 13:53:28 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 516698] Review Request: fpaste - A simple tool for pasting info onto fpaste.org
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516698 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2009-08-14 13:55:03 EDT --- fpaste-0.3.2-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fpaste-0.3.2-2.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516340] Review Request: fupt - Fedora Unity Paste 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=516340 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a.bad...@gmail.com Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #19 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2009-08-14 13:52:59 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 514540] Review Request: papyon - Python libraries for MSN Messenger network
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514540 Brian Pepple changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Brian Pepple 2009-08-14 13:44:50 EDT --- Thanks for the review! I'll fix the script before importing into cvs. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: papyon Short Description: Python libraries for MSN Messenger network Owners: bpepple Branches: InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Allisson Azevedo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471231] Review Request: WebCalendar - Single/multi-user web-based calendar application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471231 --- Comment #21 from Patrick Monnerat 2009-08-14 13:29:20 EDT --- Thanks Spot, but this was the "clear" part, and my question was not! My question is about package NAMING: is is a fourth case (after prerelease, snapshot and postrelease) where the %release should contain a specific alpha string ? (AFAIK, these are the only kind of packages that are allowed to contain a main tarball that is not directly downloadable from upstream). Or do I keep the regular package naming, breaking the "downloadable from upstream" rule ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516340] Review Request: fupt - Fedora Unity Paste 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=516340 Ankur Sinha changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs- |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 516340] Review Request: fupt - Fedora Unity Paste 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=516340 Ankur Sinha changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |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 471231] Review Request: WebCalendar - Single/multi-user web-based calendar application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471231 --- Comment #20 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-08-14 13:11:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19) > Thanks for the precision, Spot. I'll do it very soon. > But I wonder how to name and/or version the package, since this case is not > listed in the package naming guidelines, and the packaged tarball will not > match upstream's. I can imagine commenting the spec file like in the CVS > snapshot case, but it is nether a prerelease, nor a postrelease (in fact, it > is > a custom release)... Can you help me on this topic ? Thank you. So, what you need to do is this: Take the tarball upstream provides and unpack it. Then, remove the files which we do not have permission to redistribute, and then make a new tarball with the same basename as the upstream tarball, but append "-clean" to the end of it. Finally, in the spec file, refer to the -clean tarball (without a URL), and add comments that point to the original upstream tarball and how you generated the new -clean tarball: # The upstream tarball contains icons which we could not determine the licensing # for. The original source was found here: http://foo.bar/baz.tar.gz # To generate the clean tarball, run: # tar xvfz baz.tar.gz # rm -rf baz/icons/*.png # tar cvfz baz-clean.tar.gz baz/ Source: baz-clean.tar.gz -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516364] Review Request: xrdp - Open source remote desktop protocol (RDP) 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=516364 Itamar Reis Peixoto changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #15 from Itamar Reis Peixoto 2009-08-14 12:55:13 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: xrdp Short Description: Open source remote desktop protocol (RDP) server Owners: itamarjp Branches: F-10 F-11 EL-4 EL-5 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 517466] Review Request: lbreakout2 - A breakout-style arcade game for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517466 --- Comment #3 from Stjepan Gros 2009-08-14 12:36:51 EDT --- I corrected some warnings when running rpmlint on binary package. Spec URL: http://www.zemris.fer.hr/~sgros/stuff/fedora/lbreakout2/lbreakout2.spec SRPM URL: http://www.zemris.fer.hr/~sgros/stuff/fedora/lbreakout2/lbreakout2-2.6-0.3.beta7.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 517409] Review Request: django-authority - A Django app for generic per-object permissions and custom permission checks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517409 Allisson Azevedo changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Allisson Azevedo 2009-08-14 12:29:28 EDT --- Well, BAD: * rpmlint issues: django-authority.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/django-authority-0.3/docs/._handling_admin.txt django-authority.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/django-authority-0.3/docs/._tips_tricks.txt django-authority.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/django-authority-0.3/docs/._installation.txt django-authority.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/django-authority-0.3/docs/._configuration.txt django-authority.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/django-authority-0.3/docs/._support.txt django-authority.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/django-authority-0.3/docs/._index.txt django-authority.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/django-authority-0.3/docs/._handling_template.txt django-authority.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/django-authority-0.3/docs/._create_per_object_permission.txt django-authority.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/django-authority-0.3/docs/.theme/nature/._theme.conf django-authority.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/django-authority-0.3/docs/.static django-authority.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/django-authority-0.3/docs/.static django-authority.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/django-authority-0.3/docs/._check_python.txt django-authority.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/django-authority-0.3/docs/build/html/.buildinfo django-authority.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/django-authority-0.3/docs/._documentation_guidelines.txt django-authority.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/django-authority-0.3/docs/.theme django-authority.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/django-authority-0.3/docs/.theme django-authority.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/django-authority-0.3/docs/._check_templates.txt django-authority.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/django-authority-0.3/docs/._create_basic_permission.txt django-authority.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/django-authority-0.3/docs/._handling_python.txt django-authority.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/django-authority-0.3/docs/._check_decorator.txt 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 20 warnings. Please fix this issues :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 #29 from Thomas Kowaliczek 2009-08-14 12:26:15 EDT --- The packager of AlienArena have requested that because it´s need to run correctly openal-soft because it segfaults with openal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515109 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 #30 from Thomas Kowaliczek 2009-08-14 12:27:22 EDT --- I will write the packager that uses opeanl an mail and say them that the must please upgrade thier packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #28 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-08-14 12:23:44 EDT --- I've gone ahead and branched this because it's not really up to me to make the decision of whether this should be built or not, but I would still urge you to avoid breaking other packages in the stable releases. 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 516364] Review Request: xrdp - Open source remote desktop protocol (RDP) 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=516364 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-08-14 12:21:02 EDT --- Then okay. - This package (xrdp) is APPROVED by mtasaka - -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 517410] Review Request: django-piston - A mini-framework for Django for creating RESTful APIs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517410 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-08-14 12:21:09 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 516547] Review Request: Django-south - Intelligent schema migrations for Django apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516547 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-08-14 12:18:41 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 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 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-08-14 12:19:18 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 507695] Review Request: python-sqlalchemy0.5 - Modular and flexible ORM library for python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507695 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #17 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-08-14 12:16:58 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 516698] Review Request: fpaste - A simple tool for pasting info onto fpaste.org
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516698 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-08-14 12:20:13 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 517520] Review Request: easymock - Easy mock objects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517520
Andrew Overholt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||overh...@redhat.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|overh...@redhat.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Overholt 2009-08-14 12:17:10
EDT ---
Thanks for the submission. Everything looks pretty good. See comments below.
- it would be nice to use %{buildroot} instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT but it's not
a blocker
- my generated source tarball has a different md5sum but the contents are the
same (likely timestamp differences)
- will we build with maven once it's updated?
- other than the non-conffile-in-etc for the maven pom, everything is rpmlint
clean
- what provides %add_to_maven_depmap? I don't see it doing much in my log. Do
we need a BR on maven?
- please provide a link to the origin of the OSGi manifest
It builds fine locally for me.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 517466] Review Request: lbreakout2 - A breakout-style arcade game for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517466
--- Comment #2 from Stjepan Gros 2009-08-14 12:16:39
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> - The description is nonsense. Use e.g.
> "The successor to LBreakout offers you a new challenge in more than 50 levels
> with loads of new bonuses (goldshower, joker, explosive balls, bonus magnet
> ...), maluses (chaos, darkness, weak balls, malus magnet ...) and special
> bricks (growing bricks, explosive bricks, regenerative bricks ...). If you are
> still hungry for more after that you can create your own levelsets with the
> integrated level editor."
Fixed.
> - The comments to your patches are missing. Add them. Send the patches
> upstream.
I sent them upstream, but I doubt anything will happen as the maintainter
leaved message in January on the sourceforge page that he's taking break the
next few months/years...
Comments should go where?
> - Add INSTALL="install -p" to make install to preserve time stamps. Use
> 'cp -p' instead of 'cp' for the same reason.
Fixed (I hope).
> - Don't mix %{name} and lbreakout2 in %files - use one or the other and stick
> with it.
Changed two lines: '%{_datadir}/%{name}' and '%doc %{_docdir}/%{name}'. Hope
that's it?
> - Remove the docdir created by install; just list the necessary files as %doc.
You mean by issuing 'rm -rf' on that directory? Otherwise, I have to generate
the patch to prevent doc installation by 'make install'. That probably wont be
accepted upstream...
Spec URL:
http://www.zemris.fer.hr/~sgros/stuff/fedora/lbreakout2/lbreakout2.spec
SRPM URL:
http://www.zemris.fer.hr/~sgros/stuff/fedora/lbreakout2/lbreakout2-2.6-0.2.beta7.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 471231] Review Request: WebCalendar - Single/multi-user web-based calendar application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471231 --- Comment #19 from Patrick Monnerat 2009-08-14 12:16:44 EDT --- Thanks for the precision, Spot. I'll do it very soon. But I wonder how to name and/or version the package, since this case is not listed in the package naming guidelines, and the packaged tarball will not match upstream's. I can imagine commenting the spec file like in the CVS snapshot case, but it is nether a prerelease, nor a postrelease (in fact, it is a custom release)... Can you help me on this topic ? Thank you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 514342] Review Request: rubygem-fattr - Fatter attribute for Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514342 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-08-14 12:18:06 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 517300] Rename Request: ccss - A simple api for CSS Stylesheets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517300 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-08-14 12:15:20 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 512505] Review Request: php-ezc-AuthenticationDatabaseTiein - eZ Components AuthenticationDatabaseTiein
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512505 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-08-14 12:13:24 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 504424] Review Request: rubygem-json - A JSON implementation in Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504424 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #14 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-08-14 12:14:45 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 512506] Review Request: php-ezc-Feed - eZ Components Feed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512506 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-08-14 12:14:11 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 517466] Review Request: lbreakout2 - A breakout-style arcade game for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517466 Stjepan Gros changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 517412] Review Request: django-profile - Django pluggable user profile zone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517412 Allisson Azevedo changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Allisson Azevedo 2009-08-14 12:03:54 EDT --- Well, BAD: * rpmlint issues: django-profile.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6-0.1.20090813svn420 ['0.6-0.1.20090813svnr420.fc11', '0.6-0.1.20090813svnr420'] django-profile.noarch: W: no-documentation django-profile.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/demo/manage.py 0644 /usr/bin/env 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Please fix this issues. * no %doc files: Please add CHANGELOG.txt, LICENSE.txt, README.txt and TODO.txt in %doc section. * License mismatch: setup.py informs a MIT license, but, LICENSE.txt is a BSD license template, see those templates: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 513848] Review Request: fbzx - A ZX Spectrum emulator for FrameBuffer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513848 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-08-14 12:00:12 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 488968] Review Request: fedora-app-install - Fedora application data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488968 --- Comment #27 from seth vidal 2009-08-14 11:58:07 EDT --- Putting a package in the distro that will be a giant bag of icons and translations that will need to updated whenever a pkg changes or gets added that adds/removes/changes that set is a bitter pill to swallow, too. It's the WRONG way to do things, furthermore and unlike Suse and Ubuntu we have evidence of it being a bad idea in the form of two pkgs: comps and specspo - both of which used to be packages trundled along in fedora/rhl/rhel. I was talking to James about this problem and generating the metadata at createrepo time isn't terribly difficult. And the users benefit b/c instead of downloading a package containing all this content each time it is updated they can just download the fedora-updates metadata for this content. Making this information be per-repo means that 3rd party and private repos can take advantage of it, too. So, you want this metadata available to yum and PK, great, we can do that - but the info must live in the repository metadata - not in some random pkg in the distro. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488968] Review Request: fedora-app-install - Fedora application data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488968 --- Comment #26 from Jesse Keating 2009-08-14 11:57:10 EDT --- There is a terrible answer here, which is that you make users of PackageKit swallow a scheduled job that keeps all metadata fresh. Every few hours it just pulls down every single bit of metadata out there (think apt-get --update). That way whenever you go to use PackageKit, 9 times out of 10 you have the latest metadata and there is no need to go download anything new. And if there is a repo that is out of date (and we already have ways of discovering this very quickly/easily) the amount of new stuff to download will be quite small as compared to downloading for every repo. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 517410] Review Request: django-piston - A mini-framework for Django for creating RESTful APIs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517410 Diego Búrigo Zacarão changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Diego Búrigo Zacarão 2009-08-14 11:51:54 EDT --- Thanks, Allisson. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: django-piston Short Description: A mini-framework for Django for creating RESTful APIs Owners: diegobz Branches: F-10 F-11 EL-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
