[Bug 522935] Review Request: mod_gnutls - GnuTLS module for the Apache HTTP 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=522935 --- Comment #28 from Tomas Mraz 2009-10-02 02:54:31 EDT --- The mod_gnutls will not be buildable on EL-5 due to the old gnutls version in EL-5. I don't think it is any problem that the EL-5 branch was created in the CVS. I'd just commit there some text file describing why the build fails so future rebuilds are not attempted there. Use the web interface to bodhi to edit the updates - the bugzilla numbers can be updated as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526564] Review Request: unittest - C++ unit testing 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=526564 --- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt 2009-10-02 02:51:10 EDT --- I've found the section, so actually it is covered by the guidelines: | Irrelevant documentation include build instructions, | the omnipresent INSTALL file containing generic build instructions, | for example, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526855] Review Request: webacula - Web interface of a Bacula backup system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526855 Yuri Timofeev 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 526855] Review Request: webacula - Web interface of a Bacula backup system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526855 Yuri Timofeev changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tim4...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Yuri Timofeev 2009-10-02 02:15:08 EDT --- That this is my first package and I need a sponsor. Project Home Page: http://webacula.sourceforge.net/ mock build - ok. koji build - ok : https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1723734 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526855] New: Review Request: webacula - Web interface of a Bacula backup system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: webacula - Web interface of a Bacula backup system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526855 Summary: Review Request: webacula - Web interface of a Bacula backup system Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: tim4...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://webacula.sourceforge.net/files/webacula.spec SRPM URL: http://webacula.sourceforge.net/files/webacula-3.2.1-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Webacula - Web Bacula - web interface of a Bacula backup system. Currently it can run Job, restore all files or selected files, restore the most recent backup for a client, restore backup for a client before a specified time, mount/umount Storages, show scheduled, running and terminated Jobs and more. Supported languages: English, French, German, Portuguese Brazil, Russian. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 513345] Review Request: iwak - Detect the openssh keys affected by CVE-2008-0166 among authorized_keys
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513345 Matej Cepl changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(jchad...@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #12 from Matej Cepl 2009-10-02 02:00:33 EDT --- ping? what's going on with this package. Has it been already built in Rawhide? Why it hasn't been closed? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526607] Review Request: openfontlibrary-smonohand-font - A handwritten monospace font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526607 --- Comment #10 from Nicolas Mailhot 2009-10-02 01:59:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > Also, presumably the suffix -fonts stays regardless of whether the package > contains only one font or more. yes the suffix does not depend on the actual number of packaged files. That makes it safer if upstream adds a bold or italic later. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516059] Review Request: dokuwiki - Standards compliant simple to use wiki
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516059 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2009-10-02 01:06:29 EDT --- dokuwiki-0-0.2.20090214.b.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update dokuwiki'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EL-5/FEDORA-EPEL-2009-0562 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 524888] Review Request: vecmath - The 3D vector math Java package, javax.vecmath
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524888 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2009-10-02 01:07:20 EDT --- vecmath-0-2.20090922cvs.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update vecmath'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EL-5/FEDORA-EPEL-2009-0571 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 522935] Review Request: mod_gnutls - GnuTLS module for the Apache HTTP 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=522935 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System 2009-10-02 01:07:14 EDT --- afraid-dyndns-1.0-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update afraid-dyndns'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EL-5/FEDORA-EPEL-2009-0570 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 524545] Review Request: snacc - Sample Neufeld ASN.1 to C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524545 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System 2009-10-02 01:06:35 EDT --- snacc-1.3-4.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update snacc'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EL-5/FEDORA-EPEL-2009-0563 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526274] Review Request: gplcver - An interpreted Verilog HDL simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526274 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2009-10-02 01:06:23 EDT --- gplcver-2.11a-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update gplcver'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EL-5/FEDORA-EPEL-2009-0561 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526844] Review Request: cirkuit - A frontend for TikZ and circuit_macros
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526844 Chitlesh GOORAH changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chitl...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Chitlesh GOORAH 2009-10-02 00:51:33 EDT --- #001: Requires: pdf2svg Is there a package called pdf2svg on fedora repositories ? #002: missing icon on gnome menu #003: Upon launch, I got a dialog box stating: Circuit Macros could not be found on your system. The application will not work if the macros are not installed. Do you want to proceed with the installation? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526595] Review Request: zikula-module-filterutil - Pagesetter like filter rules 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=526595 Nick Bebout changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||n...@fedoraproject.org AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|n...@fedoraproject.org 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 519483] Review Request: zikula-module-pagemaster - Creates pages with dynamic content like news, articles, etc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=519483 --- Comment #8 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2009-10-02 00:10:27 EDT --- Okay. We need updated packages that depend on: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526595 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526844] New: Review Request: cirkuit - A frontend for TikZ and circuit_macros
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: cirkuit - A frontend for TikZ and circuit_macros https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526844 Summary: Review Request: cirkuit - A frontend for TikZ and circuit_macros Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: maths...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/cirkuit/cirkuit.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/cirkuit/cirkuit-0.2.1-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Cirkuit is a KDE4 application to generate publication-ready figures. It is a KDE frontend for the Circuit macros by Dwight Aplevich and for the TikZ language. Cirkuit builds a live preview of the source code and can export the resulting images in several formats (EPS, PDF, PNG, SVG, ...). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526351] Review Request: tito - A tool for managing rpm based git projects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526351 --- Comment #2 from Devan Goodwin 2009-10-01 22:04:13 EDT --- %changelog * Thu Oct 01 2009 Devan Goodwin 0.1.1-2 - Add AUTHORS and COPYING to doc. - Add BuildRequires on python-setuptools. Spec URL: http://dgoodwin.fedorapeople.org/tito/tito.spec SRPM URL: http://dgoodwin.fedorapeople.org/tito/tito-0.1.1-2.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 507697] Review Request: python-migrate0.5 - schema migration tools for SQLAlchemy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507697 --- Comment #9 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2009-10-01 21:54:17 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=363412) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=363412) Fix unittests As promised, one part of this adds the __requires__ lines to setup.py which fixes most of the unittests. The other adds the sqlalchemy path to PYTHONPATH before we call shell.py as a script. koji scratch build that works even when we have both python-sqlalchemy-0.3 and python-sqlachemy0.5-0.5.5 installed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507697] Review Request: python-migrate0.5 - schema migration tools for SQLAlchemy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507697
--- Comment #8 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2009-10-01
20:19:49 EDT ---
Okay adding:
__requires__ = 'SQLAlchemy>=0.5'
import pkg_resources
pkg_resources.require('SQLAlchemy>=0.5')
to the top of setup.py fixes the tests *that use the inprocess python*. The
tests in test_shell.py are not fixed by this because they fork a subprocess to
do their work. In production, the script that invokes these is a light wrapper
created by setuptools. Those use __requires__='' in order to perform that
function. In the test, the migrate/versioning/shell.py file is being invoked
directly. So __requires__ is not being set.
There's several ways to fix these tests. We could have a wrapper that mimics
setuptool's wrapper. We could add __requires__ ; import pkg_resources to
versioning/shell.py. We could set the PYTHON_PATH environment variable in
test_shell.py when it invokes the shell.py script so that it finds the proper
SQLAlchemy.
Of these, I think that the best one for upstream is the wrapper. A wrapper is
how the script will be invoked from the shell and the test purports to test
invokation of the script from the shell so it matches up best. Second best
(and probably the easiest if we aren't going to get it upstream as well) is the
environment variable solution. I'll go about making this happen.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526738] Review Request: py-radix - Radix tree data structure 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=526738
--- Comment #4 from Matt Domsch 2009-10-01 20:05:25 EDT
---
Steve, thanks for your comments. In general I don't like to bump revision
during review, but it's not that big a deal so is done. As for the dist tag,
yes I had added it, but as for review purposes (or when not built for a
particular dist), I tend to:
rpmbuild --define "dist %{nil}" ...
http://domsch.com/linux/fedora/py-radix/py-radix.spec
http://domsch.com/linux/fedora/py-radix/py-radix-0.5-3.fc10.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 522988] Review Request: afraid-dyndns - A dynamic DNS client for the free service afraid.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=522988 --- Comment #30 from Erick Calder 2009-10-01 19:55:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #22) > 1] use install -p to keep timestamps > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps well... the -C for install broke the F10 install... do you figure I can just not use it? how are these sorts of things handled? because I wouldn't want to take the option off and break it for the other releases -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 522935] Review Request: mod_gnutls - GnuTLS module for the Apache HTTP 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=522935 --- Comment #26 from Erick Calder 2009-10-01 19:43:13 EDT --- ugh. I put the wrong bugzilla id into the afraid-dyndns package and now I can't figure out how to edit it to correct it. help anyone? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 522935] Review Request: mod_gnutls - GnuTLS module for the Apache HTTP 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=522935 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System 2009-10-01 19:21:40 EDT --- afraid-dyndns-1.0-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/afraid-dyndns-1.0-2.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 522935] Review Request: mod_gnutls - GnuTLS module for the Apache HTTP 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=522935 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System 2009-10-01 19:24:58 EDT --- mod_gnutls-0.5.5-5.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mod_gnutls-0.5.5-5.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 522935] Review Request: mod_gnutls - GnuTLS module for the Apache HTTP 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=522935 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System 2009-10-01 19:25:03 EDT --- mod_gnutls-0.5.5-5.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mod_gnutls-0.5.5-5.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 522935] Review Request: mod_gnutls - GnuTLS module for the Apache HTTP 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=522935 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System 2009-10-01 19:24:52 EDT --- mod_gnutls-0.5.5-5.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mod_gnutls-0.5.5-5.fc12 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 522935] Review Request: mod_gnutls - GnuTLS module for the Apache HTTP 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=522935 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System 2009-10-01 19:21:53 EDT --- afraid-dyndns-1.0-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/afraid-dyndns-1.0-2.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 522935] Review Request: mod_gnutls - GnuTLS module for the Apache HTTP 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=522935 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System 2009-10-01 19:21:46 EDT --- afraid-dyndns-1.0-2.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/afraid-dyndns-1.0-2.fc12 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 522935] Review Request: mod_gnutls - GnuTLS module for the Apache HTTP 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=522935 --- Comment #19 from Erick Calder 2009-10-01 19:09:39 EDT --- the package failed building for EL-5, but for F-10 I can't seem to submit the package via bodhi. the command I use is: # cd ~/cvs/mod_gnutls/F-10 # bodhi -n -r F10 -t bugfix mod_gnutls-0.5.5-5.fc10 Creating a new update for mod_gnutls-0.5.5-5.fc10 Password for rpm: I presume "rpm" refers to the account I'm using to build this stuff but entering the password just causes another password prompt. Creating a new update for mod_gnutls-0.5.5-5.fc10 Password for rpm: is that what it is, or there is some other password I need? what am I missing? also, if the package fails to build for EL-5, that's ok right? I can still publish for the other distros? here's what I got on the failed build: Package: mod_gnutls-0.5.5-5.el5 Tag: dist-5E-epel-testing-candidate Status: failed Built by: ekkis ID: 134763 Started: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:31:37 UTC Finished: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:33:12 UTC mod_gnutls-0.5.5-5.el5 (134763) failed on x86-1.fedora.phx.redhat.com (x86_64), x86-5.fedora.phx.redhat.com (i386), x86-4.fedora.phx.redhat.com (noarch): BuildError: error building package (arch i386), mock exited with status 1; see build.log for more information SRPMS: mod_gnutls-0.5.5-5.el5.src.rpm Failed tasks: - Task 1723124 on x86-1.fedora.phx.redhat.com Task Type: buildArch (mod_gnutls-0.5.5-5.el5.src.rpm, x86_64) logs: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1723124&name=build.log http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1723124&name=root.log http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1723124&name=state.log Task 1723125 on x86-5.fedora.phx.redhat.com Task Type: buildArch (mod_gnutls-0.5.5-5.el5.src.rpm, i386) logs: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1723125&name=build.log http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1723125&name=root.log http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1723125&name=state.log Task 1723118 on x86-4.fedora.phx.redhat.com Task Type: build (dist-5E-epel-testing-candidate, /cvs/pkgs:rpms/mod_gnutls/EL-5:mod_gnutls-0_5_5-5_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 526607] Review Request: openfontlibrary-smonohand-font - A handwritten monospace font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526607 --- Comment #9 from Michel Alexandre Salim 2009-10-01 18:50:22 EDT --- Updated SRPM: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/fonts/oflb-smonohand-fonts-20090423-2.fc12.src.rpm This incorporates everything but the build-from-source/documentation issues, which is pending a response from upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526607] Review Request: openfontlibrary-smonohand-font - A handwritten monospace font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526607
--- Comment #8 from Michel Alexandre Salim
2009-10-01 18:42:33 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> > 2. the author claims he created this font in fontforge, so it'd be a good
> > idea
> > to beg for the sfd file upstream and build the font from source in the rpm
> I'll contact him and ask.
>
> > 3. there is no licensing trace in the ttf file, and web pages are
> > unfortunately
> > not future proof. Please ask upstream to release the font in a zip file that
> > includes a detached .txt licensing file (or at least use the fontforge
> > button
> > that embeds the OFL text in the .ttf)
> Ditto.
OFLB's web contact form is currently broken, so I'm not sure whether the
message I sent actually got through or not. I'm checking on IRC to see if
anyone could fix it.
> > 7. 65 is probably too high a prio for a fantasy latin font, 63-64 should be
> > fine (see fontconfig-priorities.txt)
> Where's this file? I tried looking in fontpackages{,-devel} and
> fontconfig{,-devel}. I was trying to go for as low a priority as possible,
> since it looked that 50 is for a user override, and the number goes up from
> there.
Ignore my silliness here. I was typing fontpackage, not fontpackages, and grep
swallowed the error.
> Actually, one more question: the font filename (TTF) -- is there a naming
> convention? right now it has the author's name -- dalles_-_SMonohand.ttf
Also, presumably the suffix -fonts stays regardless of whether the package
contains only one font or more.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468633] Review Request: wput - A utility for uploading files or whole directories to remote ftp-servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468633 Itamar Reis Peixoto changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #21 from Itamar Reis Peixoto 2009-10-01 18:40:26 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: wput New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 Owners: itamarjp -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526607] Review Request: openfontlibrary-smonohand-font - A handwritten monospace font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526607
--- Comment #7 from Nicolas Mailhot 2009-10-01
18:27:36 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > 7. 65 is probably too high a prio for a fantasy latin font, 63-64 should be
> > fine (see fontconfig-priorities.txt)
> Where's this file? I tried looking in fontpackages{,-devel} and
> fontconfig{,-devel}.
/usr/share/fontconfig/templates/fontconfig-priorities.txt
fontpackages-devel
> Actually, one more question: the font filename (TTF) -- is there a naming
> convention? right now it has the author's name -- dalles_-_SMonohand.ttf
Fontconfig does not care. I'd personnally remove the dalles_-_ stuff as it's
junk added by the oflb upload process, but we have no hard convention one way
or another
PS
meld or any other interactive diff tool is your friend to convert
fontpackages-devel templates in actual spec/fontconfig 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 526633] Review Request: gargi-fonts - A Devanagari font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526633 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psatp...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nicolas.mail...@laposte.net Flag||fedora-review?, ||needinfo?(sanjay.an...@gmai ||l.com) --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot 2009-10-01 18:21:57 EDT --- Anyway, thanks a lot for adding a new font package in the review pipe Appart from the CSS classification I can't really help you with, here is some review: 1. non LGC font ⇒ please use a priority ≥ 65 as per fontconfig-priorities.txt 2. please ask the lohit people what they think about this font. IMHO it is highly likely one of the lohit fonts shares a common ancestry with gargi (and in that case they should at least cross-alias each other) 3. Licensing should be GPLv2+ 4. (non blocking) please ask upstream to add the standard FSF GPL font exception to their licensing 5. (non blocking) description could use some meat Anyway, this package is mostly fine, except for the classification problem. NEEDINFO till this is resolved -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 521909] Review Request: ne7ssh - SSH Library is a Secure Shell client software written in C++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521909 --- Comment #22 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) 2009-10-01 18:12:10 EDT --- http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora11/ne7ssh/ne7ssh-1.3.1-6.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 526607] Review Request: openfontlibrary-smonohand-font - A handwritten monospace font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526607
Michel Alexandre Salim changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|needinfo?(michael.silvanus@ |
|gmail.com) |
--- Comment #6 from Michel Alexandre Salim
2009-10-01 18:13:06 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Thank you for submitting a new font package for review. I hope you'll find the
> process smooth and friendly, please do not hesitate to tell us what could be
> made better if something bugs you.
>
> Anyway, for the review
>
> 1. we use oflb as prefix for openfontlibrary fonts
Ah, thanks. That's why yum search openfont did not find anything of interest
> 2. the author claims he created this font in fontforge, so it'd be a good idea
> to beg for the sfd file upstream and build the font from source in the rpm
I'll contact him and ask.
> 3. there is no licensing trace in the ttf file, and web pages are
> unfortunately
> not future proof. Please ask upstream to release the font in a zip file that
> includes a detached .txt licensing file (or at least use the fontforge button
> that embeds the OFL text in the .ttf)
Ditto.
> 4. IMHO this font should be classified as "fantasy" not "monospace" (see
> fontconfig-generics.txt in fontpackages-devel)
>
> 5. Why do you reference Droid Sans Mono in your fontconfig file? If that's
> because you cut and pasted from the Droid file, you have clean and documented
> fontconfig templates in fontpackages-devel (in
Em. Guilty as charged. I recently installed it, so when looking for a reference
spec, I looked there. Somehow I skipped over the notice at the top of the
packaging page.
> /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/). The lastest rawhide version is probably the
> best reference for anything ≥ F11 (I'll probably push it to F11 if I stop
> finding things to improve every other week)
I'm on Rawhide, so that's good.
> 6. IMHO it is wrong to alias Chalkboard or Comic Sans MS if you're not sure
> Smonohand is very close both in looks and metrics. The reason being looks only
> are not sufficient, if the letters are different sizes documents written will
> one of the other fonts will end up repaginated with smonohand. Usually when we
> alias a font is much closer than just 'looks like it'
Ah, OK.
>
> 7. 65 is probably too high a prio for a fantasy latin font, 63-64 should be
> fine (see fontconfig-priorities.txt)
Where's this file? I tried looking in fontpackages{,-devel} and
fontconfig{,-devel}. I was trying to go for as low a priority as possible,
since it looked that 50 is for a user override, and the number goes up from
there.
> For a first try this is a nice package, you just need to spend some time
> reading the little documentation we have in fontpackages-devel and you'll be
> fine.
>
Will do that and reupload an updated spec later today, thanks for the feedback!
Actually, one more question: the font filename (TTF) -- is there a naming
convention? right now it has the author's name -- dalles_-_SMonohand.ttf
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 521909] Review Request: ne7ssh - SSH Library is a Secure Shell client software written in C++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521909 --- Comment #21 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) 2009-10-01 18:09:30 EDT --- Ok, ok. Proposed soft-dependencies in RPM will be cool in this situation. But in nowadays we haven't them... So, now I've delete ne7ssh-devel dependency from ne7ssh-doc, but add warning about it in description. Do you are agree with that solution? > No. Unless you insist on claiming it would be important that users could > simply build them by executing "make" without having to install any needed > packages. I'm insist on claiming it important :) > You misunderstood me. Surely, a PDF file needs a special viewer to display it. > With that my earlier comments should be more clear. I understood you. You misunderstood my point. Such dependency is very generic and very ambiguous to be explicit. Really, all binary file require elf-interpreter, but we do not add kernel into any binary package as dependency!!! PDF also have many graphical tools and also many console converters like pdf2text. Absolutely different situation with source code. BR-dependency like gcc in most cases automatically deducted and written in package. And we also do not want explicit add it. But, if we want compile some code, we MUST write all dependency on concrete package to do that. It is a main work of maintainers. Off course, I partial agree with yours arguments what it is not fully logical in -doc package (it is why it was listed as Requires, not BuildRequires) and it why I try search reasonable compromise in this situation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 524992] Review Request: toppler - platform game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524992 --- Comment #4 from Xavier Bachelot 2009-10-01 18:12:28 EDT --- New version : - Fix License. - Fix buffer overflow in level editor Spec URL: http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/toppler.spec SRPM URL: http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SRPMS/toppler-1.1.3-3.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526633] Review Request: gargi-fonts - A Devanagari font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526633 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-i18n-b...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot 2009-10-01 18:08:48 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > I'm not > sure if its a sans-serif or a fantasy, since I can't decide if this font can > be > used for long professional texts. It's the Devanagari script, so could be > used. Well, I don't read Devanagari at all, and the font has no OS/2 metadata, please ask upstream or the i18n for clarification (and as last resort use fantasy as that's the safest choice) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 440676] Review Request: lua-filesystem - File System Library for Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=440676 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added CC||michael.silva...@gmail.com Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Michel Alexandre Salim 2009-10-01 18:05:10 EDT --- Discussed with Tim; we'd want to eventually have the entire Lua stack on EPEL. Package Change Request == Package Name: lua-filesystem New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 Owners: timn salimma -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526564] Review Request: unittest - C++ unit testing 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=526564 --- Comment #4 from Ionuț Arțăriși 2009-10-01 17:58:43 EDT --- Ok. :) http://mapleoin.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/unittest/unittest.spec.2 http://mapleoin.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/unittest/unittest-0.50-62.3.fc11.src.rpm * Fri Oct 2 2009 Ionuț Arțăriși - 0.50-62.3 - removed INSTALL file - moved all doc files to the same dir -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526607] Review Request: openfontlibrary-smonohand-font - A handwritten monospace font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526607 --- Comment #5 from Nicolas Mailhot 2009-10-01 17:56:53 EDT --- 8. and I forgot: please use the font package name as .spec name -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526607] Review Request: openfontlibrary-smonohand-font - A handwritten monospace font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526607 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nicolas.mail...@laposte.net Flag||fedora-review?, ||needinfo?(michael.silvanus@ ||gmail.com) --- Comment #4 from Nicolas Mailhot 2009-10-01 17:53:24 EDT --- Thank you for submitting a new font package for review. I hope you'll find the process smooth and friendly, please do not hesitate to tell us what could be made better if something bugs you. Anyway, for the review 1. we use oflb as prefix for openfontlibrary fonts 2. the author claims he created this font in fontforge, so it'd be a good idea to beg for the sfd file upstream and build the font from source in the rpm 3. there is no licensing trace in the ttf file, and web pages are unfortunately not future proof. Please ask upstream to release the font in a zip file that includes a detached .txt licensing file (or at least use the fontforge button that embeds the OFL text in the .ttf) 4. IMHO this font should be classified as "fantasy" not "monospace" (see fontconfig-generics.txt in fontpackages-devel) 5. Why do you reference Droid Sans Mono in your fontconfig file? If that's because you cut and pasted from the Droid file, you have clean and documented fontconfig templates in fontpackages-devel (in /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/). The lastest rawhide version is probably the best reference for anything ≥ F11 (I'll probably push it to F11 if I stop finding things to improve every other week) 6. IMHO it is wrong to alias Chalkboard or Comic Sans MS if you're not sure Smonohand is very close both in looks and metrics. The reason being looks only are not sufficient, if the letters are different sizes documents written will one of the other fonts will end up repaginated with smonohand. Usually when we alias a font is much closer than just 'looks like it' 7. 65 is probably too high a prio for a fantasy latin font, 63-64 should be fine (see fontconfig-priorities.txt) For a first try this is a nice package, you just need to spend some time reading the little documentation we have in fontpackages-devel and you'll be fine. NEEDINFO till this submission progresses -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526055] Review Request: alure - AL Utilities REtooled
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526055 --- Comment #4 from Guido Grazioli 2009-10-01 17:50:14 EDT --- Hello thanks for looking into this. I applied your change requests and will contact upstream asap asking to include the license for NaturalDocs files, and possibly the two patches i wrote. Updated files here: http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/alure/alure.spec http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/alure/alure-1.0-4.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 507697] Review Request: python-migrate0.5 - schema migration tools for SQLAlchemy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507697 --- Comment #7 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2009-10-01 17:35:05 EDT --- You probably don't want to drop the %check as it's alerting you to a real problem. Looking into this -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526351] Review Request: tito - A tool for managing rpm based git projects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526351 Martin Gieseking changed: What|Removed |Added CC||martin.giesek...@uos.de --- Comment #1 from Martin Gieseking 2009-10-01 17:03:36 EDT --- The package doesn't build in mock on my F-11 system. A koji scratch build fails too: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1723028 Excerpt from the build log: + /usr/bin/python setup.py build Traceback (most recent call last): File "setup.py", line 19, in from setuptools import setup, find_packages ImportError: No module named setuptools You should also add AUTHORS and COPYING to %doc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526738] Review Request: py-radix - Radix tree data structure 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=526738 --- Comment #3 from Steve Traylen 2009-10-01 16:42:34 EDT --- Hi Matt, Given one of the items was to add a dist tag its kind of impossible for them to be at the same URLs since the file name will have changed. More over between each of revisions could you please increase the Release number, otherwise it all becomes rather confusing. Steve -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 521909] Review Request: ne7ssh - SSH Library is a Secure Shell client software written in C++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521909 --- Comment #20 from Michael Schwendt 2009-10-01 16:39:03 EDT --- > What is a big problem set nw7ssh-devel as dependency for nw7ssh-doc? It creates a superfluous chain of dependencies. It adds several packages, which are not really needed by anyone who may want to evaluate the API Documentation (such as the included PDF). At least the following four packages would be pulled in: ne7ssh-devel + ne7ssh + botan-devel + botan. It's unexpected for a Documentation package to have such requirements. > Or you think I should expand my patch on examples too? No. Unless you insist on claiming it would be important that users could simply build them by executing "make" without having to install any needed packages. ;-) Just like many _optional_ test-suites, such examples often are out-of-sync with the main library anyway. Especially if they are not built by default. That means less users will build them and will notice build problems. Less users will report build failures with _optional_ files to upstream. > No special tools needed. You misunderstood me. Surely, a PDF file needs a special viewer to display it. With that my earlier comments should be more clear. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526738] Review Request: py-radix - Radix tree data structure 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=526738 --- Comment #2 from Matt Domsch 2009-10-01 16:34:06 EDT --- Thanks Steve. All fixed, new versions posted at the same URLs above. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468230] Review Request: TurboGears2 - Next generation Front-to-back web development megaframework built on Pylons
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468230 --- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System 2009-10-01 16:14:21 EDT --- TurboGears2-2.0.3-3.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/TurboGears2-2.0.3-3.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 515164] Review Request: gnomenu - A consolidated menu for gnome that brings eye candy to the world of the Gnome menu's
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515164
--- Comment #13 from Michael Schwendt 2009-10-01
16:10:38 EDT ---
* repeat "rpmlint -i gnomenu-1.9.9-3.fc11.src.rpm" as some of the older issues
are still there
* you should really not mix usage of %buildroot and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
* multiple directories are not included:
%{_sysconfdir}/%{name}
/usr/lib/%{name}
%{_datadir}/gnomenu
%{_datadir}/gnomenu/Themes
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FileAndDirectoryOwnership
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 523799] Review Request: ascii - nteractive ascii name and synonym chart
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523799
Martin Gieseking changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||martin.giesek...@uos.de
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|martin.giesek...@uos.de
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Martin Gieseking 2009-10-01
16:07:59 EDT ---
Here's my review of this small package. It's pretty clean and I couldn't find
any major issues to fix. However, I'm not sure if ascii is a valid package
name. As far as I understand the naming rules and comments from other reviews,
generic terms should not be used as package names. What do you think?
- You can simplify the make statement to
make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}"
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-11-x86_64/result/ascii-*
ascii.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary ascii
ascii.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary ascii
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
If ascii is a proper package name, these warnings can be ignored.
-
keys used in following checklist:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[X] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- I'm not sure if ascii is a valid package name because generic terms
should be avoided
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
- source file header refers to file COPYING that contains the GPLv2 license
text
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: file that contains the text of the license(s) for the package must be
included in %doc.
- COPYING added to %doc
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
$ sha1sum ascii-3.8.tar.gz*
c7a513cd52c0fec64491566b5db18fa070639ca4 ascii-3.8.tar.gz
c7a513cd52c0fec64491566b5db18fa070639ca4 ascii-3.8.tar.gz.1
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1722862
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
- no explicit BRs necessary
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
- no locales
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
- no shared libs
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
- not relocatable
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
- no large docs
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
- no header files
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
- no static libs
[.] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
- no .pc files
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
- no shared libs
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- no devel package
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
- no .la files
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file.
- no GUI
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[+] SHOULD: The r
[Bug 468230] Review Request: TurboGears2 - Next generation Front-to-back web development megaframework built on Pylons
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468230 --- Comment #34 from Luke Macken 2009-10-01 16:07:04 EDT --- I should also note that I will be unavailable for most of tomorrow, and parts of next week. So please feel free to continue pushing this forward if I'm not around to do so. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526651] Review Request: xpaint - An X Window System image editing or paint program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526651
Jussi Lehtola changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-10-01 16:01:29
EDT ---
A couple of notes:
- URL should be http://sf-xpaint.sourceforge.net/
- Source0 should be
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/sf-xpaint/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468230] Review Request: TurboGears2 - Next generation Front-to-back web development megaframework built on Pylons
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468230 --- Comment #33 from Luke Macken 2009-10-01 16:03:40 EDT --- Here's an updated status... python-catwalk [X] EL-5 Pending stable push [X] F-11 Pending stable push [X] rawhide python-repoze-what-quickstart [X] EL-5 Pending stable push [X] F-11 Pending stable push [X] Rawhide python-repoze-what-plugins-sql [X] EL-5 pending stable push [X] F-11 [X] Rawhide TurboGears2 [X] Rawhide [_] EL-5 python-zope-sqlalchemy Built and requests stable push python-pylons Branch request made (#526576) [_] python-routes EL branch request (#526803) [_] python-webhelpers EL- branch request (#526801) [_] python-beaker EL-5 branch request (#526800) [X] python-weberror [X] python-webtest Headed to testing [_] F-11 Waiting for python-repoze-what-quickstart python-tg-devtools [_] rawhide [X] python-tw-forms-0.9.8 [X] Rawhide [X] F-11 Headed to testing [X] EL-5 Headed to testing [X] python-toscawidgets-0.9.8 [X] EL-5 Headed to testing [X] F-11 Headed to testing [_] F-11 [_] EL-5 Needs python-migrate0.5 (#507697) python-repoze-tm2 [X] Rawhide [X] F11 Headed to updates-testing [X] EL-5 Headed to updates-testing -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526805] New: Review Request: lua-loop - Class models for Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: lua-loop - Class models for Lua https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526805 Summary: Review Request: lua-loop - Class models for Lua Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: michael.silva...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/funpl/lua-loop.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/funpl/lua-loop-2.3-0.1.beta.fc12.src.rpm Description: LOOP stands for Lua Object-Oriented Programming and is a set of packages for supporting different models of object-oriented programming in the Lua language. LOOP models are mainly concerned with dynamicity, although there is an attempt to keep them as simple and efficient as possible. Additionally, LOOP uses fundamental Lua concepts like tables (objects) and meta-tables (classes), traditionally used to enable an object-oriented programming style, to provide a common ground for the interoperability of objects and classes of its different models. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 466047] Review Request: tcl-mysqltcl - MySQL interface for Tcl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466047
--- Comment #25 from Rene Ploetz 2009-10-01 15:56:47 EDT
---
The guidelines do not seem to say anything about Obsoletes, but the main reason
behind is that you obviously remove all packages which do provide an
unversioned %{real_name} as well as the versioned ones below this release.
There are only few use-cases for this, the main one is to remove any user-built
(or third party) rpm versions which were installed before.
If you do not see that this will be necessary I can easily remove the line.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 525346] Review Request: papi - Performance Application Programming Interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=525346 --- Comment #7 from William Cohen 2009-10-01 15:48:12 EDT --- Updated srpm for a couple SPEC file cleanups (proper URL for download location and requires for -devel RPM); Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/wcohen/papi/papi.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/wcohen/papi/papi-3.7.0-7.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 526126] Review Request: python3 - Python 3.x (backwards incompatible version)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526126 Dave Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalc...@redhat.com --- Comment #6 from Dave Malcolm 2009-10-01 15:45:18 EDT --- I also had a go at packaging 3.1.1, before I saw either of your efforts, so we now have 3 separate SRPMS... I'll have a look and compare the 3 SRPMs. To liven things up further, I think it would be good if the python 3 specfile closely resembled the python 2 specfile. (It may be necessary to clean up the python 2 specfile to do this, see bug 226342). I've written up some thoughts about getting Python 3 into Fedora here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-October/msg00054.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526567] Review Request: mongodb - high-performance, open source, schema-free document-oriented database
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526567
--- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt 2009-10-01 15:42:41
EDT ---
> mongodb.src:78: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/lib
It's not a failure in rpmlint. The package will fail to build for 64-bit
multi-arch targets where %_libdir is /usr/lib64 instead of /usr/lib
You move %{buildroot}/lib to %{buildroot}%{_prefix}, but you don't include any
files in %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/lib (!) but %{buildroot}%{_libdir} which is not
the same.
Needs a fix. Read up on how to do scratch-builds with koji (the Fedora Build
System).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526564] Review Request: unittest - C++ unit testing 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=526564 --- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt 2009-10-01 15:35:40 EDT --- Aha, I see you've found somebody who has started the sponsoring process but has not sponsored you yet (and hasn't approved the first package yet). [...] > I found nothing in the Guidelines saying that irrelevant files > should be excluded, There is nothing in the guidelines which says you should explicitly include useless files which aren't installed automatically by "make install". ;-P And there is one guideline above all other guidelines. It's called "common sense". ;-) The trick is to not include such files as %doc. Simpy write %doc COPYING instead of: %doc COPYING INSTALL :) > though I found a lot of INSTALL files that are written in a similar > manner and included. Packaging mistakes. Not good examples. Especially not if it's the "standard" FSF Installation Instructions "INSTALL" file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526564] Review Request: unittest - C++ unit testing 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=526564 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard|NotReady| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 521909] Review Request: ne7ssh - SSH Library is a Secure Shell client software written in C++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521909
--- Comment #19 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus)
2009-10-01 15:27:40 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Splitting-hairs. You *could* include these tiny example source files in the
> -devel package, but it really doesn't matter. It's cleaner to treat them as
> documentation.
If we treat this as documentation it should be included in -doc.
What is a big problem set nw7ssh-devel as dependency for nw7ssh-doc?
> * The examples don't even build from scratch. They fail. You haven't tried to
> compile them at all, which shows how unimportant they are to you. Most of them
> are missing to include the cstdio header.
You are wrong. I try build it. I can say more - I start learning this library
by examples (as many do, it is why I pay such attention for that). But you a
right, there is cstdio header issue. As I mail about it to upstream author in
main library. This is trivial to fix errors. So, I hope it will be fixed soon.
Or you think I should expand my patch on examples too?
> * The examples won't build inside their directory as only superuser root can
> write to that directory. A normal user would need to copy them somewhere else.
Yes. I known. But user can copy example "as is" and build it.
> * The examples don't even work if built without modifications, since some
> contain only examplary values instead of real-life configuration values. They
> are really just an add-on to the API documentation, not ready-to-run demos.
Modifications needed only dfor user/password. Other work fine with included
Makefile. Furthermore, examples built ok (except cstdio header issue) it only
may not functional properly (but user/pass is extremal private values to
provide "commons").
> * Documentation packages also need a program that can display the
> documentation. For example, a browser for HTML pages. Or a viewer for PDF
> files. Such requirements are _not_ hardcoded as package dependencies.
No special tools needed. Standard cat, more or less commands may act as
documentation reader. Especially for C-files. It is generic, it is not required
listed as dependencies.
> * All -devel packages need a matching development environment, i.e. compilers
> and tools, standard libraries. Such requirements are _not_ hardcoded as
> package
> dependencies either.
Off course. But -devel packages itself must be listed as dependencies.
>
> * A packaging issue is left, too.
> This is Fedora's cmake invocation with the %{cmake} macro:
>
> %build
> -CFLAGS="%{optflags}" CXXFLAGS="%{optflags}" cmake .
> +%{cmake} .
> make all %{?_smp_mflags}
>
> Look at "rpm --eval %cmake" to see what it does. Not only does it set the
> optflags, it also increases verbosity to fill the build log with relevant
> output.
This is very helpful hint. Thank you. I've fixed it.
http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora11/ne7ssh/ne7ssh.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 472144] Review Request: tvbrowser - Free EPG for over 500 stations.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472144 --- Comment #25 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-10-01 15:24:45 EDT --- Well I checked the latest rawhide skinlf source and skinlf CVS repository, however the following files are still under ASL 1.1 (total: 10 files) --- src/main/com/l2fprod/gui/plaf/skin/SkinLookAndFeel.java src/main/com/l2fprod/gui/plaf/skin/Window.java src/main/com/l2fprod/gui/plaf/skin/impl/AbstractSkinProgress.java src/main/com/l2fprod/gui/plaf/skin/impl/gtk/parser/*.java --- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 519282] Review Request: calibre - e-book converter and library manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=519282
--- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt 2009-10-01 15:20:21
EDT ---
Directory %{python_sitelib}/%{name}/ is not included.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FileAndDirectoryOwnership
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526738] Review Request: py-radix - Radix tree data structure 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=526738 Steve Traylen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||steve.tray...@cern.ch AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|steve.tray...@cern.ch Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Steve Traylen 2009-10-01 15:17:03 EDT --- Hi, 1) $ rpmlint py-radix.spec py-radix.spec:28: W: setup-not-quiet py-radix.spec: E: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install %setup needs a -q and first line of install should be rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT 2) The release should have a dist tag. i.e https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag 3) There is no need to have Requires: python since it is automatically worked out. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 466047] Review Request: tcl-mysqltcl - MySQL interface for Tcl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466047
--- Comment #24 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-10-01
15:04:16 EDT ---
Well, would you answer this question?
(In reply to comment #21)
> One thing I forgot to ask:
>
> * Obsoletes
> - Would you explain why you want "Obsoletes:
> %{real_name} < %{version}-%{release}" 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 225697] Merge Review: distcache
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225697
Steve Traylen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Steve Traylen 2009-10-01 14:56:15
EDT ---
Hi,
I presume a merge review is the same as a normal review just
a different starting point:
Comments:
1) $ rpmlint distcache.spec
distcache.spec:57: E: use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR
Yes you should not install from the SOURCE_DIR
but instead in %prep move things to unpacked
directory. i.e.
cp -p %{SOURCE1} .
after your %setup.
2) The 3 patches have no comments or upstream bugs attached.
3) The useradd section in the %post could be a litte more complicated as
recommended here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UsersAndGroups
(It's odd its in the %post and not in the %pre, is it really not needed
till then? It looks like it may be in the passwd file already though.
4) The two scripts in the .src.rpm should not be executable.
5) What about splitting to a client and server package? Is that sensible?
6) You could mark /etc/sysconfig/distcache as a %gfile
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507697] Review Request: python-migrate0.5 - schema migration tools for SQLAlchemy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507697
Luke Macken changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|needinfo?(lmac...@redhat.co |
|m) |
--- Comment #6 from Luke Macken 2009-10-01 14:55:23 EDT
---
Ugh, I loathe setuptools.
So, with this patch, the test suite runs fine:
--- migrate/__init__.py.orig2009-10-01 09:44:50.865973980 -0400
+++ migrate/__init__.py 2009-10-01 09:44:51.972973558 -0400
@@ -4,3 +4,6 @@
:mod:`migrate.changeset` that allows to define database schema changes
using Python.
"""
+__requires__ = 'SQLAlchemy>=0.5'
+import pkg_resources
+pkg_resources.require('SQLAlchemy>=0.5')
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1722497
However, when adding python-sqlalchemy (0.3) to the build requires, it explodes
with a VersionConflict.
I've lost many a day in setuptools-hell. Not today though, so I'm in favor of
dropping the %check until we can figure this out.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 525211] Review Request: rubygem-ditz - A command-line issue tracker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=525211
Mamoru Tasaka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #9 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-10-01
14:51:33 EDT ---
Some notes:
* Unneeded macros
- The defined macro ruby_sitelib does not seem to be used anywhere.
* License
- Please change the license tag to "GPLv3 with exceptions"
* Virtual (Build)Requires
- For ruby(gem) modules related (Build)Requires, please don't use
rpm names directly but use virtual Provides like perl:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#Perl_Requires_and_Provides
* Macros
- Use macros properly. /usr/bin should be %{_bindir}.
* Duplicate files
- "LICENSE README.txt" are installed twice (one under %geminstdir,
one under %_defaultdocdir/%name-%version)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526055] Review Request: alure - AL Utilities REtooled
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526055
Martin Gieseking changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||martin.giesek...@uos.de
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|martin.giesek...@uos.de
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Martin Gieseking 2009-10-01
14:48:02 EDT ---
Here is my review of your package. I only found a few minor issues to be fixed.
The -devel package should get its own license tag since GPLv2+ of NaturalDocs
applies to the -devel package only.
Additionally, some further suggestions:
- The tarball contains two example files that could help developers to
understand how to use the library. You should add the folder examples/ to the
-devel package.
- I recommend to explicitly list the name of the include directory since it's
easier to see where the header files go:
%{_includedir}/AL/
- please add a blank line between the changelog entries
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-11-x86_64/result/alure-*
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
-
keys used in following checklist:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
- files in tarball and the website indicate LGPLv2
- according to the link given above, LGPLv2+ is intended
- tarball contains files from NaturalDocs which is licensed under GPLv2+
- website of NaturalDocs links to GPLv3+ license text
[X] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
- the base package is licensed under LGPLv2+ only
- the devel package contains the NaturalDocs files, so that its own license
tag should be "LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+"
[+] MUST: file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be
included in %doc.
- COPYING added to %doc
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
$ sha1sum alure-1.0-src.tar.bz2*
ec97ff5d418b8e1fd89b8c056b9ea22c98671b65 alure-1.0-src.tar.bz2
ec97ff5d418b8e1fd89b8c056b9ea22c98671b65 alure-1.0-src.tar.bz2.1
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1722519
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
- no locales
[+] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
- not relocatable
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
- NaturalDocs documentation of the library placed in -devel package
[+] MUST: files in %doc 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.
- no static libraries built
[+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
[+] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
libalure.so added to -devel package
[+] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-
[Bug 520479] Review Request: myproxy - Manage X.509 Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=520479 --- Comment #4 from Steve Traylen 2009-10-01 14:21:45 EDT --- http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/myproxy/myproxy.spec http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/myproxy/myproxy-4.8-3.fc11.src.rpm .spec file altered so that it now builds on .el5 as well. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1722508 still looking for a review. Steve -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225697] Merge Review: distcache
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225697 Steve Traylen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||steve.tray...@cern.ch AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|steve.tray...@cern.ch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 525210] Review Request: rubygem-trollop - A command-line option parsing library 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=525210 --- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-10-01 13:46:26 EDT --- Well, upstream released 1.15, so please upgrade. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453422] Review Request: songbird - Mozilla based multimedia player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453422 --- Comment #86 from Scott Williams 2009-10-01 13:30:53 EDT --- I regressed to 1.1.2 with the same plugin set and it's working. Looks related to the upstream bug: http://www.getsatisfaction.com/songbird/topics/songbird_segfault_on_fedora_10 I am running fedora 11 x86_64. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526564] Review Request: unittest - C++ unit testing 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=526564
--- Comment #2 from Ionuț Arțăriși 2009-10-01
13:23:23 EDT ---
Thanks for the review, Michael!
> > I'm not a packager yet, but I have a sponsor
> Really? This package needs a lot of love, since it isn't ready yet and doesn't
> pass the guidelines
> Btw, your sponsor must be the one to do the final package review:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer
It's gotten a bit more complicated I think, since I've submitted more packages
after I've found a sponsor for the calibre package. As I understood from my
sponsor, he will watch all my submissions and reviews and help me get
sponsored.
> rpmlint is a bit scary
> Well, it's more scary that you don't comment on those rpmlint warnings and
> errors at all. Some of the errors found by rpmlint are obvious packaging
> mistakes. You don't even ask any questions about that. Also run rpmlint on the
> src.rpm.
> Please become familiar with the Packaging Guidelines:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
> In particular take a look at
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
Sorry for not commenting on the rpmlint errors. I was actually looking for
feedback as I didn't know what to do about all those errors. I knew what they
meant, but I also falsely assumed that all tests provided by the package must
be included in the final rpm.
The package now removes all the tests after they are run.
> But that's not the only problem. At the top of the list are misplaced files,
> such as
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/collection.html
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/default.css
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/index.html
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/misc.html
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/mixin.html
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/setup-teardown.html
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/test-advanced.html
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/test.html
Fixed.
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/unittest-devel-0.50/INSTALL
> That one is irrelevant to RPM package end-users.
I found nothing in the Guidelines saying that irrelevant files should be
excluded, though I found a lot of INSTALL files that are written in a similar
manner and included. Originally I followed the example of the eject.spec
described in:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CreatingPackageHowTo
# yum provides */INSTALL|echo $((`wc -l`/7))
553
> > %{__sed} -i 's|/usr/lib|%{buildroot}%{_libdir}|g' Makefile
> That transformation breaks the build on 64-bit platforms where libdir is
> /usr/lib64.
Fixed.
SPEC: http://mapleoin.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/unittest/unittest.spec.1
SRPM:
http://mapleoin.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/unittest/unittest-0.50-62.2.fc11.src.rpm
* Thu Oct 1 2009 Ionuț Arțăriși - 0.50-62.2
- don't include tests
- move html docs to the right dir
- add Provides: -static
- fixed Group:
- fixed /usr/lib problem for 64-bit systems in Makefile
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 525211] Review Request: rubygem-ditz - A command-line issue tracker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=525211 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|182235(FE-Legal)| --- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-10-01 13:18:05 EDT --- Okay, removing 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 216519] Review Request: sdparm - List or change SCSI disk parameters
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=216519 Dan Horák changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d...@danny.cz Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Dan Horák 2009-10-01 13:05:08 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: sdparm New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 Owners: sharkcz -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526567] Review Request: mongodb - high-performance, open source, schema-free document-oriented database
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526567 --- Comment #4 from Ionuț Arțăriși 2009-10-01 13:00:07 EDT --- Sorry, I forgot to link to the new files: SPEC: http://mapleoin.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/mongodb/mongodb.spec.1 SRPM: http://mapleoin.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/mongodb/mongodb-1.0.0-2.fc11.src.rpm * Thu Oct 1 2009 Ionuț Arțăriși - 1.0.0-2 - added virtual -static package -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453422] Review Request: songbird - Mozilla based multimedia player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453422 --- Comment #85 from David Halik 2009-10-01 12:59:42 EDT --- That looks like an issue with whatever gst plugins you're using. It's basically saying that you're running a 64bit songbird against a 32bit libgstflump3dec.so. Make sure that all your gstreamer packages are 64bit and the latest release if you're on a x86_64 install and try it again. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453422] Review Request: songbird - Mozilla based multimedia player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453422
--- Comment #84 from Scott Williams 2009-10-01 12:51:01
EDT ---
With the RPM you've provided for 1.2.0-1, any playback causes a segfault:
(songbird-bin:20179): GStreamer-WARNING **: Failed to load plugin
'/home/scott/.gstreamer-0.10/plugins/libgstflump3dec.so':
/home/scott/.gstreamer-0.10/plugins/libgstflump3dec.so: wrong ELF class:
ELFCLASS32
/usr/lib64/songbird-1.2.0/songbird: line 134: 20175 Segmentation fault
"$prog" ${1+"$@"}
The seg fault does not just happen with mp3 format.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 523553] Review Request: mutrace - Mutex Tracer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523553 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(lpoet...@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #11 from Michel Alexandre Salim 2009-10-01 12:41:44 EDT --- Lennart? Would be nice to see this packaged soon-ish, especially since building for F-12 now require rel-eng to manually tag a package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526607] Review Request: openfontlibrary-smonohand-font - A handwritten monospace font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526607 --- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim 2009-10-01 12:18:15 EDT --- Looks like the restore is now complete, and the files are back there. I didn't even notice the crash! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526746] New: Review Request: yaz - Z39.50/SRW/SRU programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: yaz - Z39.50/SRW/SRU programs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526746 Summary: Review Request: yaz - Z39.50/SRW/SRU programs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: guido.grazi...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/yaz/yaz.spec SRPM URL: http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/yaz/yaz-3.0.49-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Z39.50 is a client-server protocol for searching and retrieving information from remote computer databases (ANSI/NISO Z39.50 protocol). yaz was orphaned and i took ownership on devel, F-10, F-11 branches. As it was last updated more than three months ago, i have to let it pass again under a review process. In this update the package is moved to upstream version 3.0.49 and Requires: pkgconfig was added to -devel subpackage as it installs .pc 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 468230] Review Request: TurboGears2 - Next generation Front-to-back web development megaframework built on Pylons
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468230
--- Comment #32 from Luke Macken 2009-10-01 12:06:50 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #28)
> One more thing. Current TurboGears2 package requires only
> python-repoze-tm2-1.0-0.3.a3, but when trying to start my application, this is
> displayed:
>
> pkg_resources.VersionConflict: (repoze.tm2 1.0a3
> (/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages), Requirement.parse('repoze.tm2>=1.0a4'))
>
> Looks like we need to update repoze.tm2 to at least 1.0a4.
> Please rebuild this package for F11 too (currently only in rawhide).
Built and queued for pushing:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-repoze-tm2-1.0-0.5.a4.el5
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-repoze-tm2-1.0-0.5.a4.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 468223] Review Request: python-repoze-tm2 - Zope-like transaction manager via WSGI middleware
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468223 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2009-10-01 12:04:10 EDT --- python-repoze-tm2-1.0-0.5.a4.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-repoze-tm2-1.0-0.5.a4.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 487097] Review Request: ReviewBoard - web based code review 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=487097 --- Comment #15 from Cristian Ciupitu 2009-10-01 11:38:15 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14) > Please re-add the "BuildRequires: python-setuptools-devel" to the spec. I was > unable to build it cleanly in mock without this. > > I attempted to build on a fully up-to-date F11 x86_64 box on mock using the > fedora-11-x86_64 target. I'm running an up-to-date Fedora 11 x86_64 too I was able to rebuild ReviewBoard-1.0.1-1.fc11.src.rpm after removing the python-setuptools-devel package. What errors are you getting? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526567] Review Request: mongodb - high-performance, open source, schema-free document-oriented database
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526567
--- Comment #3 from Ionuț Arțăriși 2009-10-01
11:34:08 EDT ---
> Package builds and includes a static library and doesn't meet the guidelines
> on
> static libraries.
Thanks for pointing this out. That file is the C++ driver. I've added a virtual
Provides for it in the -devel package.
$ rpmlint mongodb-1.0.0-1.fc11.src.rpm
mongodb.src:78: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
That seems to be a rpmlint error since it comes from this line in the spec
file:
mv %{buildroot}/lib %{buildroot}/bin %{buildroot}/include
%{buildroot}%{_prefix}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526738] New: Review Request: py-radix - Radix tree data structure for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: py-radix - Radix tree data structure for Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526738 Summary: Review Request: py-radix - Radix tree data structure for Python Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: matt_dom...@dell.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://domsch.com/linux/fedora/py-radix/py-radix.spec SRPM URL: http://domsch.com/linux/fedora/py-radix/py-radix-0.5-2.src.rpm Description: py-radix is an implementation of a radix tree for Python, which supports storage and lookups of IPv4 and IPv6 networks. The radix tree (a.k.a Patricia tree) is the data structure most commonly used for routing table lookups. It efficiently stores network prefixes of varying lengths and allows fast lookups of containing networks. py-radix's implementation is built solely for networks (the data structure itself is more general). I expect to use this in MirrorManager. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468230] Review Request: TurboGears2 - Next generation Front-to-back web development megaframework built on Pylons
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468230
--- Comment #31 from Luke Macken 2009-10-01 11:33:57 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #27)
> (In reply to comment #25)
> > (In reply to comment #24)
> > > python-tg-devtools
> > > Needs python-migrate0.5 (#507697)
> >
> > python-migrate-0.5.3 is a part of F11, no need to wait for it for F11.
>
> Right, just need to fix spec to require correct migrate package.
>
> Luke, in devel branch you imported original spec
> http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/python-tg-devtools/devel/python-tg-devtools.spec?revision=1.1&view=markup
>
> which fails to build on >= F-11
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1721250&name=root.log
>
> Proposed patch in bug 468804 comment 5 moves python-migrate BR
> under conditional %if 0%{?fedora} > 10
Ah, I committed the unpatched specfile yesterday, sorry about that. I just
committed a new revision with your patch and I'm building python-tg-devtools
now. Thanks.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468230] Review Request: TurboGears2 - Next generation Front-to-back web development megaframework built on Pylons
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468230 --- Comment #30 from Luke Macken 2009-10-01 11:32:29 EDT --- (In reply to comment #26) > (In reply to comment #25) > > (In reply to comment #24) > > > Here is a quick status update of the TG2 stack from my notes > > > python-catwalk > > > [X] F-11 > > > > python-catwalk is still missing in F11. Please build it. > > Build is in koji but Bodhi update request is missing. I just pushed it into bodhi, thanks for the heads up. > > > python-tg-devtools > > > Needs python-migrate0.5 (#507697) > > > > python-migrate-0.5.3 is a part of F11, no need to wait for it for F11. > > Yes, python-migrate0.5 is for EPEL/F10. > Luke, please resolve https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507697#c5 > so it can be approved. Looking into it now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 524346] Review Request: avra - ATmel AVR 8-bit RISC microcontroller assembler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524346 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System 2009-10-01 11:17:27 EDT --- avra-1.2.3-4.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/avra-1.2.3-4.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 524346] Review Request: avra - ATmel AVR 8-bit RISC microcontroller assembler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524346 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System 2009-10-01 11:13:49 EDT --- avra-1.2.3-4.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/avra-1.2.3-4.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487097] Review Request: ReviewBoard - web based code review 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=487097 --- Comment #14 from Stephen Gallagher 2009-10-01 11:04:54 EDT --- Please re-add the "BuildRequires: python-setuptools-devel" to the spec. I was unable to build it cleanly in mock without this. I attempted to build on a fully up-to-date F11 x86_64 box on mock using the fedora-11-x86_64 target. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 525786] Review Request: popfile - Automatic Email Classification
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=525786 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #15 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-10-01 11:05:23 EDT --- Closing. Note that currently bodhi has not been set up to accept F-12 updates request. When bodhi begins to do so (a notification will be sent to fedora-devel-list ), please submit updates request for F-12. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468230] Review Request: TurboGears2 - Next generation Front-to-back web development megaframework built on Pylons
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468230 --- Comment #29 from Nils Philippsen 2009-10-01 10:43:29 EDT --- (In reply to comment #23) > F-11 build is waiting on python-repoze-what-quickstart, which will be going > out > in the next updates push. FTFY: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/2260 ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472144] Review Request: tvbrowser - Free EPG for over 500 stations.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472144 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|182235(FE-Legal)| --- Comment #24 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-10-01 10:23:46 EDT --- Lifting FE-Legal, as this is resolved in rawhide (at least). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487097] Review Request: ReviewBoard - web based code review 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=487097 --- Comment #13 from Dave Malcolm 2009-10-01 10:13:52 EDT --- (FWIW, my motivation here is that I'm hoping that Fedora Infrastructure can deploy an instance of reviewboard; see: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1196 "Deploy Review Board for use by hosted projects") -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 522920] Review Request: tnef - Extract files from email attachments like winmail.dat
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522920 --- Comment #11 from Naoki IIMURA 2009-10-01 10:07:07 EDT --- (From update of attachment 36) (In reply to comment #9) > Yeah, I'm in action again, and triggered a build with the package as in my > last > post. Unfortunately, it still fails on both ppc arches. > > Since the test log requests emailing the upstream, I have done so, providing a > link to the koji logs. I hope the upstream can handle the issue. > I attach a screen shot of what I get and intend a user installing the package > to have available once installed. Thanks. I've also uploaded a screen shot on my Fedora 11. > Sounds like it didn't work for you. Perhaps it only works on F11, or maybe > possibly need to retest on another machine now that I have changed the package > a little to validate the .desktop file that causes the mime-type menu...I'll > have some more time by the weekend or so. OK. I'll test the new package when it is available. Naoki -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 503591] Review Request: python-catwalk - A way to view your models using TurboGears
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503591 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2009-10-01 10:04:29 EDT --- python-catwalk-2.0.2-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-catwalk-2.0.2-1.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
