[Bug 526426] Review Request: libgle - A Tubing and Extrusion Library for OpenGL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526426 --- Comment #15 from Thomas Fitzsimmons 2009-12-02 02:57:54 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14) > (In reply to comment #13) > > What's the reason for the mesa-libGL-devel requirement in the devel > > sub-package? > It should be > Requires: libGL-devel > because the package doesn't actually depend upon Mesa's libGL-devel, but upon > an arbitrary package which provides "libGL-devel" Requiring libGL-devel versus mesa-libGL-devel is fine by me. But why does libgle-devel explicitly require libGL-devel? gle.h doesn't include any other include files. My gle-devel package required xorg-x11-proto-devel and did not own the /usr/include/GL directory, but I think having libgle-devel own /usr/include/GL is better. But I don't understand the libGL-devel requirement, since libGL-devel isn't required to build against libgle. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 515230] Review Request: python-dmidecode - python extension module to access DMI data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515230 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-12-02 03:22:32 EDT --- Closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 526426] Review Request: libgle - A Tubing and Extrusion Library for OpenGL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526426 --- Comment #16 from Ralf Corsepius 2009-12-02 04:19:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) > (In reply to comment #14) > Requiring libGL-devel versus mesa-libGL-devel is fine by me. But why does > libgle-devel explicitly require libGL-devel? gle.h doesn't include any other > include files. Correct, but ... the situation actually is more difficult: # nm -D --undefined /usr/lib64/libgle.so w _Jv_RegisterClasses U __cxa_atexit w __cxa_finalize U __fprintf_chk w __gmon_start__ U acos U atan2 U free U glBegin U glColor3fv U glColor4fv U glEnd U glIsEnabled U glMultMatrixd U glNormal3dv U glPopMatrix U glPushMatrix U glTexCoord2d U glVertex3dv U gluBeginPolygon U gluDeleteTess U gluEndPolygon U gluNewTess U gluTessCallback U gluTessVertex U malloc U realloc U sincos U sqrt U stderr => There are hidden deps on libGL and libGLU. I am not sure (yet) how to handle this. A couple of real world use cases of libgle would easily clearify the issue. > My gle-devel package required xorg-x11-proto-devel and did not own the > /usr/include/GL directory, but I think having libgle-devel own /usr/include/GL > is better. That's a different (unresolved) problem: Ownership of the /usr/include/GL. In general, the current rule is: If package A depends on another package B which provides a directory, package A wants to install files into, then it is sufficient for package A to "R: B". If package A does not depend upon package B, then package B must own this directory (The directory would be owned by both A and B, then). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 532590] Review Request: yaws - Web server for dynamic content written in Erlang
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532590 --- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov 2009-12-02 04:48:05 EDT --- Yet another bunch of notes: * Requires erlang-erlsom (needs patch - I'll try to provide it) * Requires egssapi (still not packaged) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 542740] Review Request: f2c - The f2c Fortran to C/C++ conversion program and static libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542740
--- Comment #10 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-12-02 05:12:13
EDT ---
f2c-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
f2c-libs.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libf2c.so.0.22
f2c-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libf2c.so.0.22
e...@glibc_2.2.5
f2c-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
f2c-libs.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libf2c.so.0.22
f2c-libs.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libf2c.so.0.22
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings.
- The post and postun
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
should be
%post libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
- I think the no-ldconfig-symlink warning can be fixed by creating
ln -sf libf2c.so.0.22 %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/libf2c.so.0
Try if this works.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 542740] Review Request: f2c - The f2c Fortran to C/C++ conversion program and static libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542740 --- Comment #12 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-12-02 05:17:48 EDT --- Of course, not having documentation in some subpackage is OK, if there is nothing to be put there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 542740] Review Request: f2c - The f2c Fortran to C/C++ conversion program and static libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542740 --- Comment #11 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-12-02 05:17:19 EDT --- Oh, and move the license files (and any other general files) to the -libs package, since the -libs package is going to be always present. The documentation specific to f2c stays in the main package, and the documentation to the headers and development libraries go to -devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 452427] Review Request: awesome - Extremely fast, small, dynamic and awesome floating and tiling window 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=452427 --- Comment #91 from Michal Nowak 2009-12-02 05:21:00 EDT --- 3.4.2 in fp.o: http://mnowak.fedorapeople.org/awesome/awesome-3.4.2-1.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 543383] New: Review Request: emacs-irsim-mode - Irsim mode for emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: emacs-irsim-mode - Irsim mode for emacs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543383 Summary: Review Request: emacs-irsim-mode - Irsim mode for emacs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: saga...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://sagarun.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/emacs-irsim-mode.spec SRPM URL: http://sagarun.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/emacs-irsim-mode-0.1-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: This package is provides Emacs mode for editing IRSIM netlists. IRSIM is a switch-level simulator for digital logic circuits. koji builds EPEL, F12,F11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1842928 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1842936 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1842950 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 543383] Review Request: emacs-irsim-mode - Irsim mode for emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543383 Arun SAG changed: What|Removed |Added CC||shakthim...@gmail.com 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 543383] Review Request: emacs-irsim-mode - Irsim mode for emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543383 Chitlesh GOORAH changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|chitl...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225693] Merge Review: dialog
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225693 Dan Horák changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d...@danny.cz AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@danny.cz Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226165] Merge Review: mt-st
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226165 Dan Horák changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d...@danny.cz --- Comment #5 from Dan Horák 2009-12-02 05:46:09 EDT --- The stinit initscript was recently updated in F-12 and rawhide (see bug 541592 for details) and it doesn't start any daemon, but it does only a one-time initialization of tape devices, so I think it can live as it is. -- 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 226165] Merge Review: mt-st
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226165 Miroslav Lichvar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Miroslav Lichvar 2009-12-02 06:05:55 EDT --- Ok, thanks. The package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 543425] New: Review Request: gource - Software version control visualization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: gource - Software version control visualization https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543425 Summary: Review Request: gource - Software version control visualization Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: spoya...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Siddhesh Poyarekar changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? SPEC: http://people.redhat.com/spoyarek/gource/gource.spec SRPM: http://people.redhat.com/spoyarek/gource/gource-0.18-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: OpenGL-based 3D visualisation tool for source control repositories. The repository is displayed as a tree where the root of the repository is the centre, directories are branches and files are leaves. Contributors to the source code appear and disappear as they contribute to specific files and directories. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 543383] Review Request: emacs-irsim-mode - Irsim mode for emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543383
--- Comment #1 from Shakthi Kannan 2009-12-02 06:24:29
EDT ---
#001: Use %{__rm} instead of rm.
Use %{__mkdir} instead of mkdir.
#002: Use %{__install} instead of having to define % global INSTALL.
#003: In %prep, %build section, you are doing the same (cd) twice. Not
required.
#004: There is no README file?
#005: These are redundant!
%global pkg emacs-irsim-mode
%global common_name irsim-mode
%global pkgname Emacs-irsim-mode
%global pkgdir %{buildroot}%{emacs_lispdir}/irsim-mode/
%global ver 0.1
%global rel 1
#006: Instead of 'ver', 'rel', you can call them something else? Avoid
short-hand as much as possible. .spec needs to be readable.
#007:
"This package contains the elisp source files for
Emacs-irsim-mode under GNU Emacs.
You do not need to install this package
to run Emacs-irsim-mode.
Install the emacs-irsim-mode package
to use %{pkgname} with GNU Emacs."
The grammar in the above is incorrect. You just copied the text? :) Why do you
need to give instructions on packaging it in the description? Just keep the
following in the description:
This package contains elisp source files for Emacs-irsim-mode for use with
GNU Emacs.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225693] Merge Review: dialog
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225693 Dan Horák changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Dan Horák 2009-12-02 06:22:04 EDT --- formal review is here, see the notes below: OK source files match upstream: 068a46aa1ffbfe96fdbf5cedd480b795a4f6321a dialog-1.1-20080819.tgz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible (LGPLv2). License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK* rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths, correct scriptlets present OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK correct scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK headers in devel OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. - rpmlint compains a bit, but these are OK dialog.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary dialog dialog.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary dialog This package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 537431] Review Request: mono-bouncycastle - Bouncy Castle Crypto Package for Mono
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=537431 --- Comment #4 from Kalev Lember 2009-12-02 06:27:13 EDT --- * Wed Dec 02 2009 Kalev Lember - 1.5-3 - Temporarily bundle mono.snk with this package to fix build on < F-13 Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/mono-bouncycastle.spec SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/mono-bouncycastle-1.5-3.fc13.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1843092 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 543425] Review Request: gource - Software version control visualization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543425 --- Comment #1 from Siddhesh Poyarekar 2009-12-02 06:40:27 EDT --- Updated the SPEC and SRPM after rpmlint'ing the packages and specfile. Thanks Rahul Sundaram! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225302] Merge Review: automake
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225302 Karsten Hopp changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard|NotReady| --- Comment #9 from Karsten Hopp 2009-12-02 07:25:09 EDT --- I couldn't find any MIT licensed files in the package anymore, dropped MIT from the list. I've also fixed the man page timestamps: http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewvc/devel/automake/automake.spec?revision=1.47&view=markup -- 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 531255] Review Request: CGSI-gSOAP - GSI plugin for gSOAP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531255 --- Comment #12 from Steve Traylen 2009-12-02 07:37:19 EDT --- Is there a reason for the lack of .el4 or 5 build? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 530193] Review Request: rubygem-calendar_date_select - A popular date picker widget for ruby on rails and prototype.js
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530193 Michal Babej changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mba...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Michal Babej 2009-12-02 07:43:52 EDT --- The first three are just a result of how rdoc/ri deals with punctuaction in method names (escaping, "has_time?" => "has_time%3f"). "file MIT-LICENSE" says: MIT-LICENSE: ASCII English text, with CRLF line terminators so i think yes, dos2unix is your friend :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 538327] Review Request: otpd - One Time Password daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538327 --- Comment #28 from manuel wolfshant 2009-12-02 07:49:17 EDT --- Couple of things, after a quick glance over the spec - Unless you have very very good reasons to not do it, please consider using %dist in the release field. It'll save you some headaches later - I do not see the reason for # Create an empty otppasswd file [ ! -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/otppasswd ] && echo "" > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/otppasswd Since you are in a clean buildroot, the file does not exist unless make install created it. And a simple "touch $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/otppasswd" seems more elegant to me. Or even "> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/otppasswd" (no need for the "echo " part ). However, nothing incorrect in your approach either. Just a matter of style - Please consider the comment #26. It's ugly to restart a daemon which was not specifically allowed to be on by the admin -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 538327] Review Request: otpd - One Time Password daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538327 --- Comment #29 from manuel wolfshant 2009-12-02 07:51:28 EDT --- And please ditch the packager tag. The fedora buildsystem will fill it for you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 531255] Review Request: CGSI-gSOAP - GSI plugin for gSOAP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531255 --- Comment #13 from Mattias Ellert 2009-12-02 07:57:51 EDT --- When I did the Fedora builds gsoap was not yet in EPEL. Gsoap has now been built for EPEL, and I have requested a buildroot override in order to build CGSI-gSOAP before gsoap gets into EPEL stable. The buildroot override was added on Sunday - so it is now possible to build the packages, I just had a lot of things to do since then. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 543383] Review Request: emacs-irsim-mode - Irsim mode for emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543383 --- Comment #2 from Arun SAG 2009-12-02 08:00:58 EDT --- Spec URL: http://sagarun.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/emacs-irsim-mode.spec SRPM URL: http://sagarun.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/emacs-irsim-mode-0.1-2.fc12.src.rpm Koji builds EPEL,F12: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1843275 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1843279 Everything addressed except #004 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 543383] Review Request: emacs-irsim-mode - Irsim mode for emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543383 Chitlesh GOORAH changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Chitlesh GOORAH 2009-12-02 08:03:38 EDT --- Arun, update the spec and srpm as Shakthi recommends. Afterwards, I'll complete the review. If you have based your spec file on mine, please include its changelog as well. https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-electronic-lab/attachment/ticket/50/emacs-irsim-mode.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 543383] Review Request: emacs-irsim-mode - Irsim mode for emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543383 --- Comment #4 from Chitlesh GOORAH 2009-12-02 08:04:13 EDT --- Ok, then I'll start the review -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 538327] Review Request: otpd - One Time Password daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538327 --- Comment #30 from manuel wolfshant 2009-12-02 08:16:21 EDT --- With respect to #26 and #28: please make sure the initscript does not install with the daemon started by default. Common Fedora policy is to allow the admin to activate the required services, not enforce them in a "started" state. Also, according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript#Required_Actions it would be nice if you could implement the missing actions (and also use the exit codes listed in that page) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 530755] Review Request: dpic - A compiler for the pic language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530755 --- Comment #7 from Chitlesh GOORAH 2009-12-02 08:31:47 EDT --- can you please update all the packages you are preparing for cirkuit as they will determine the usability of the tool itself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 522777] Review Request: perl-Verilog-Perl - Verilog parsing routines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522777 Chitlesh GOORAH changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 543480] New: Review Request: javamail - Java Mail API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: javamail - Java Mail API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543480 Summary: Review Request: javamail - Java Mail API Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mefos...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~mef3/soprano-sesame/javamail.spec SRPM URL: http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~mef3/soprano-sesame/javamail-1.4.3-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: The JavaMail API provides a platform-independent and protocol-independent framework to build mail and messaging applications. Note: This is the successor to the glassfish-javamail packages -- see http://java.sun.com/products/javamail/. The classes included in the smtp, pop3, imap, and mailapi sub-packages are all also in the main javamail.jar. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 543480] Review Request: javamail - Java Mail API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543480 Mary Ellen Foster changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||540986 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 540986] Review Request: logback - A Java logging library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=540986 Mary Ellen Foster changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||543480, 543081, 530088 --- Comment #3 from Mary Ellen Foster 2009-12-02 09:06:09 EDT --- Okay, here's a new version that uses Maven to build and makes use of the Javamail 1.4 classes. Unfortunately, this produces a few more dependencies ... Spec URL: http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~mef3/soprano-sesame/logback.spec SRPM URL: http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~mef3/soprano-sesame/logback-0.9.17-2.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 543383] Review Request: emacs-irsim-mode - Irsim mode for emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543383
--- Comment #5 from Chitlesh GOORAH 2009-12-02 09:20:35
EDT ---
#001: Description
Use the following description instead :
32 IRSIM is a switch-level simulator for digital logic circuits.
33 This is an Emacs mode for editing IRSIM netlists. It provides
34 syntax highlighting and an extremely pleasant method if indentation.
#002: Start file
It should better have the following since I think it should be autoload
49 (autoload 'irsim-mode "irsim-mode" nil t)
50 (setq auto-mode-alist
51(cons '("\\.sim$" . irsim-mode) auto-mode-alist))
#003: compile it with
emacs -batch -f batch-byte-compile %{pkg}.el
#004 Directory ownership and duplicates
Verify why you are having double directory ownership in the %files section for
%{emacs_startdir}
#005 Keep the spec file simple
replace cd %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version} by cd %{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 540986] Review Request: logback - A Java logging library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=540986 Mary Ellen Foster changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||542730 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 539268] Review Request: rubygem-will_paginate - Most awesome pagination solution for Rail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539268 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(dpie...@redhat.co ||m) --- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-12-02 09:39:14 EDT --- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 532309] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-net-ldap - A full-featured pure-Ruby LDAP client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532309 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(kana...@kanarip.c ||om) --- Comment #13 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-12-02 09:39:59 EDT --- ping? (By the way Jason's opinition is just as same as me) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232790] Review Request: ming - SWF output library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=232790 --- Comment #23 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-12-02 09:42:09 EDT --- Should we close this bug now? -- 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 226661] Merge Review: yaboot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226661 --- Comment #3 from Ivana Varekova 2009-12-02 09:49:53 EDT --- Seems OK for e the last point I have is: %defattr(-,root,root) ->%defattr(-,root,root,-) -- 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 542754] Review Request: artha - A handy thesaurus based on WordNet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542754 --- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-12-02 09:55:20 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > SPEC: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/artha/artha.spec > SRPM: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/artha/artha-0.9.1-2.fc11.src.rpm Connection timed out... By the way http://artha.sourceforge.org/ returns "Server not found"... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 542759] Review Request: mpqc - Ab-inito chemistry 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=542759
--- Comment #11 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-12-02 09:57:51
EDT ---
rpmlint output:
mpqc.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/molrender ['/usr/lib64']
mpqc.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/mpqc ['/usr/lib64']
mpqc.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/scls ['/usr/lib64']
mpqc.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/scpr ['/usr/lib64']
mpqc.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/chkmpqcout 0555
mpqc.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/bin/chkmpqcout
mpqc-data.noarch: W: no-documentation
mpqc-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources
mpqc-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This package contains the
header files and static libraries needed to build programs linked
mpqc-devel.x86_64: E: rpath-in-buildconfig /usr/bin/sc-config lines ['30']
mpqc-devel.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/bin/sc-mkf77sym
mpqc-libs.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This package contains the shared
libraries needed to run programs dynamically linked
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: macro-in-%description %{bname}
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/libSCmolecule.so.7.1.0
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSCmolecule.so.7.1.0
e...@glibc_2.2.5
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSCmolecule.so.7.1.0
exit@@GLIBC_2.2.5
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libmpqc.so.7.1.0
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libmpqc.so.7.1.0
e...@glibc_2.2.5
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libmpqc.so.7.1.0
exit@@GLIBC_2.2.5
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/libSCisosurf.so.7.1.0
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libSCclass.so.7.1.0
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSCclass.so.7.1.0
e...@glibc_2.2.5
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSCclass.so.7.1.0
exit@@GLIBC_2.2.5
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libSCmisc.so.7.1.0
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSCmisc.so.7.1.0
e...@glibc_2.2.5
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSCmisc.so.7.1.0
exit@@GLIBC_2.2.5
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libSCdft.so.7.1.0
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libSCwfn.so.7.1.0
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libSCmbpt.so.7.1.0
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/libSCoptions.so.7.1.0
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/libSCsymmetry.so.7.1.0
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSCsymmetry.so.7.1.0
e...@glibc_2.2.5
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSCsymmetry.so.7.1.0
exit@@GLIBC_2.2.5
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libSCpsi.so.7.1.0
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libSCscf.so.7.1.0
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libSCoint3.so.7.1.0
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/libSCkeyval.so.7.1.0
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSCkeyval.so.7.1.0
e...@glibc_2.2.5
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSCkeyval.so.7.1.0
exit@@GLIBC_2.2.5
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libSCbasis.so.7.1.0
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSCbasis.so.7.1.0
e...@glibc_2.2.5
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSCbasis.so.7.1.0
exit@@GLIBC_2.2.5
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libSCscmat.so.7.1.0
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libSCintv3.so.7.1.0
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSCintv3.so.7.1.0
e...@glibc_2.2.5
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSCintv3.so.7.1.0
exit@@GLIBC_2.2.5
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/libSCsolvent.so.7.1.0
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libSCref.so.7.1.0
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/libSCcontainer.so.7.1.0
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/libSCoptimize.so.7.1.0
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libSCgroup.so.7.1.0
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libSCstate.so.7.1.0
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/libSCrender.so.7.1.0
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSCrender.so.7.1.0
e...@glibc_2.2.5
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSCrender.so.7.1.0
exit@@GLIBC_2.2.5
mpqc-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 11 errors, 45 warnings.
Fix these (you don't need to mind about the shared-libs-calls-exit warnin
[Bug 542759] Review Request: mpqc - Ab-inito chemistry 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=542759
--- Comment #12 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-12-02 09:59:31
EDT ---
Notice that the description of the -libs package uses a macro %{bname} that
doesn't exist.
Also, the -devel package has a wrong summary, it should be something along the
lines of "Development headers and libraries for %{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 542759] Review Request: mpqc - Ab-inito chemistry 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=542759
--- Comment #13 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-12-02 10:02:09
EDT ---
Please don't mix %{name} and "mpqc" in %files, it makes the list a bit hard to
read. And, you might consider shortening the changelog, just keep the latest
Mandriva entry.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 542759] Review Request: mpqc - Ab-inito chemistry 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=542759 --- Comment #14 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-12-02 10:06:37 EDT --- Furthermore: drop the BuildConflicts, since that package does not exist in Fedora. Instead add export F77=gfortran to the beginning of %build to make the build process use gfortran instead of g77. Since for now we are building a serial version, add --disable-parallel to %configure. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 542759] Review Request: mpqc - Ab-inito chemistry 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=542759 --- Comment #15 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-12-02 10:15:50 EDT --- I'd change the description to "The Massively Parallel Quantum Chemistry Program". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 543383] Review Request: emacs-irsim-mode - Irsim mode for emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543383 --- Comment #6 from Arun SAG 2009-12-02 10:13:40 EDT --- Spec URL:http://sagarun.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/emacs-irsim-mode.spec SRPM URL:http://sagarun.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/emacs-irsim-mode-0.1-3.fc12.src.rpm Koji builds EPEL,F12 : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1843821 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1843823 Issues #001 #002 #003 #004 #005 fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 543549] New: Review Request: rubygem-haml - XHTML/XML templating engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rubygem-haml - XHTML/XML templating engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-haml - XHTML/XML templating engine Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mba...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://mogurakun.web.runbox.net/rubygem-haml.spec SRPM URL: http://mogurakun.web.runbox.net/rubygem-haml-2.2.14-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Haml (HTML Abstraction Markup Language) is a layer on top of XHTML or XML that's designed to express the structure of XHTML or XML documents in a non-repetitive, elegant, easy way, using indentation rather than closing tags and allowing Ruby to be embedded with ease. rpmlint rubygem-haml.spec: rubygem-haml.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: engine_test.patch 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint rubygem-haml-2.2.14-1.fc12.noarch.rpm: rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Script/Number/normalize%21-i.yaml %21 rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Object/is_haml%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/CommentNode/invisible%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/Node/perform%21-i.yaml %21 rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/Node/options%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Script/Number/convertable%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/ImportNode/invisible%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Engine/Line/comment%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/PropNode/perform%21-i.yaml %21 rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/RuleNode/perform%21-i.yaml %21 rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/PropNode/invalid_child%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/CommentNode/%3d%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Haml/Helpers/action_view%3f-c.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Plugin/Rack/disable_native_plugin%21-c.yaml %21 rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Haml/Template/rails_xss_safe%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Script/Number/int%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/ActionView/Base/delegate_template_exists%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/PropNode/%3d%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/IfNode/options%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Script/Literal/%3d%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/ImportNode/perform%21-i.yaml %21 rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Haml/Util/has%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Script/Number/unitless%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/RuleNode/%3d%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/RuleNode/continued%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Script/Lexer/done%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Haml/Util/assert_html_safe%21-i.yaml %21 rubygem-haml.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/haml-2.2.14/ri/Sass/Tree/Node/invalid_child%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem
[Bug 539387] Review Request: InsightToolkit - Medical imaging processing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539387 --- Comment #7 from Mario Ceresa 2009-12-02 11:07:32 EDT --- Hello Peter! thanks for your comments. * I'm not sure about name. Perhaps 'itk' would be better name than InsightToolkit? Yes, but package itk already exists and is an object oriented extensions to Tk. Maybe I should use libitk? * I just found, that ITK contains numerous bundled libraries, many of them are duplication Fedora's system ones - see 'Utilities' directory. This should be fixed (and necessary BuildRequires should be added). You're right. Shame on me! I'll fix it. * Also I'm anxious about the contents of 'Code/Patented' folder. The Patented code is optional for ITK and is actually disabled by default. However, I'll add the -DITK_USE_PATENTED:BOOL=OFF cmake flag to the specs to be sure that is never included in the packages. Do you want the folder to be erased in the %prep or %build part? I'm a bit busy and can't make all the requested changes right now, but I'll try to address all of your notes and make a new package later this week. BTW I activated my brand new fedora people account (how cool! :) ) and republished there the srpms and specs. http://mrceresa.fedorapeople.org/InsightToolkit.spec http://mrceresa.fedorapeople.org/InsightToolkit-3.16.0-1.fc12.src.rpm Beware that I simply copied there the old ones! I'll post a message when the new version is available. Cheers, Mario -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226324] Merge Review: psutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226324 Dan Horák changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||d...@danny.cz, ||dnovo...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@danny.cz Flag|needinfo?(tsmet...@redhat.c |fedora-review? |om) | -- 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 540885] Review Request: cableswig - Create interfaces to interpreted languages for templated code
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=540885 --- Comment #5 from Mario Ceresa 2009-12-02 11:10:37 EDT --- Thanks to Peter sponsorship I could activate my fedorapeople account. Thus from now on the updated srpms/spec locations will be: http://mrceresa.fedorapeople.org/cableswig.spec http://mrceresa.fedorapeople.org/cableswig-cvs20091120-1.fc12.src.rpm Mario -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226175] Merge Review: mx
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226175 Dan Horák changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||d...@danny.cz, ||dnovo...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@danny.cz Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 523224] Review Request: mingw32-xerces-c - MingGW Windows validating XML parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523224 Antti Andreimann changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Antti Andreimann 2009-12-02 11:17:53 EDT --- Thank You for the review. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mingw32-xerces-c Short Description: MingGW Windows validating XML parser Owners: anttix Branches: F-12 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 543337] Review Request: rubygem-rcov - Code coverage analysis tool 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=543337 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-12-02 11:17:48 EDT --- Some notes: ? Requires - Would you explain the necessity of "R: rubygem(rake)"? ( Maybe for lib/rcov/rcovtask.rb ? If so, I wonder if this script is used by default or not because no other scripts in rcov gem seems to require this script ) ! Note that I am not objecting to adding "R: rubygem(rake)". * ext/ - Files under ext/ are to generate C extension module (rcovrt.so) and should not be needed to be included into binary rpm. ( The trouble is that once we try to execute "rake check" under %geminstdir, rake task tries to regenerate .so file. In such cases files under ext/ are needed, however anyway this won't work but for root because write permission for %geminstdir is needed. So while you may want to add files under ext to -doc subpackage, these files should not be in main 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 542740] Review Request: f2c - The f2c Fortran to C/C++ conversion program and static libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542740 --- Comment #13 from Carl Byington 2009-12-02 11:19:30 EDT --- I don't see any documentation files specific to the -libs package. Currently f2c does not require f2c-libs, and f2c-libs does not require f2c. Should I add a requires to force one or the other, so that the license files will always get installed? A similar question for mpqc. The only interpackage dependencies are mpqc-devel requires mpqc-libs requires mpqc-data. The license files are installed in mpqc, so if only mpqc-libs is installed, the user has no license files. What is the general approach to such packages with multiple mostly independent subpackages. It seems there are only three choices. Force an artifical dependency on the subpackage that contains the license files, install multiple copies of the license files in each independent subpackage, or allow some subpackages to install with no license 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 510195] Review Request: eclipse-slice2java - A plugin that integrates Eclipse with Ice object 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=510195 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2009-12-02 11:20:43 EDT --- eclipse-slice2java-3.3.1.20091005-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/eclipse-slice2java-3.3.1.20091005-1.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 529196] Review Request: ms-anonymouspro-fonts - AnonymousPro fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529196 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2009-12-02 11:27:06 EDT --- msimonson-anonymouspro-fonts-1.001-2.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/msimonson-anonymouspro-fonts-1.001-2.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 543566] New: Review Request: tsocks - Library to allow transparent SOCKS proxying
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: tsocks - Library to allow transparent SOCKS proxying https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543566 Summary: Review Request: tsocks - Library to allow transparent SOCKS proxying Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jfsauc...@infoglobe.ca QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://jfsaucier.fedorapeople.org/packages/tsocks.spec SRPM URL: http://jfsaucier.fedorapeople.org/packages/tsocks-1.8-1.beta5.fc12.src.rpm Description: tsocks is a library to allow transparent SOCKS proxying. It supports both SOCKS 4 and SOCKS 5 (only TCP). tsocks is designed for use in machines which are firewalled from the internet. It avoids the need to recompile applications like lynx or telnet so they can use SOCKS to reach the internet. It behaves much like the SOCKSified TCP/IP stacks seen on other platforms. This is my first submitted package and I need a sponsor. Thank you! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 543566] Review Request: tsocks - Library to allow transparent SOCKS proxying
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543566 Jean-Francois Saucier 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 510195] Review Request: eclipse-slice2java - A plugin that integrates Eclipse with Ice object 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=510195 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2009-12-02 11:49:10 EDT --- eclipse-slice2java-3.3.1.20091005-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/eclipse-slice2java-3.3.1.20091005-1.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 539268] Review Request: rubygem-will_paginate - Most awesome pagination solution for Rail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539268 Darryl L. Pierce changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(dpie...@redhat.co | |m) | --- Comment #3 from Darryl L. Pierce 2009-12-02 11:51:16 EDT --- Sorry, have been getting SIGLIFE'd since your post. I'll have an update in the next week or 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 225693] Merge Review: dialog
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225693 --- Comment #16 from Patrice Dumas 2009-12-02 11:57:51 EDT --- What about my comments on the API? -- 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 225851] Merge Review: gob2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225851 Miroslav Lichvar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dnovo...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Miroslav Lichvar 2009-12-02 12:21:56 EDT --- Review follows: OK source files match upstream: cced6d709df6fad3baf8831f027d62d5 gob2-2.0.16.tar.gz BAD source contains full URL - source should point to http://ftp.5z.com/pub/gob/gob2-2.0.16.tar.gz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. - %makeinstall can be replaced with more correct make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD>_ROOT OK dist tag is present. OK build root is correct. OK license field matches the actual license (GPLv2+). OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock. OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK no scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. -- 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 542754] Review Request: artha - A handy thesaurus based on WordNet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542754 --- Comment #11 from Roshan Singh 2009-12-02 12:26:52 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #6) > > SPEC: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/artha/artha.spec > > SRPM: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/artha/artha-0.9.1-2.fc11.src.rpm > > Connection timed out... Sorry there is a power outrage over here. I am trying to locate some other possible location to upload it. Suggest if you have any place to do it. Only web based uploads possible. > By the way http://artha.sourceforge.org/ returns "Server not found"... It was a mistake, the url is http://artha.sourceforge.net/. Changed it in the spec. Should I revert the license to GPLv2 or should i keep GPLv2+. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 542740] Review Request: f2c - The f2c Fortran to C/C++ conversion program and static libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542740 --- Comment #14 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-12-02 12:30:08 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) > Currently f2c does not require f2c-libs, and f2c-libs does not require f2c. > Should I add a requires to force one or the other, so that the license files > will always get installed? > > A similar question for mpqc. The only interpackage dependencies are mpqc-devel > requires mpqc-libs requires mpqc-data. The license files are installed in > mpqc, > so if only mpqc-libs is installed, the user has no license files. What is the > general approach to such packages with multiple mostly independent > subpackages. > It seems there are only three choices. Force an artifical dependency on the > subpackage that contains the license files, install multiple copies of the > license files in each independent subpackage, or allow some subpackages to > install with no license files. When the packages are configured to use shared libraries, the lib dependencies will always be there. For instance $ rpm -qp --requires mpqc-2.3.1-12.fc12.x86_64.rpm /usr/bin/env /usr/bin/wish libSCbasis.so.7()(64bit) libSCclass.so.7()(64bit) libSCcontainer.so.7()(64bit) libSCdft.so.7()(64bit) and so on. The lib dependencies pull in the -libs package, along with its licenses. Independent packages must contain all (relevant) documentation in every package, but we avoid duplication of files in interdependent packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 527549] Review Request: osm2go - A simple openstreetmap editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=527549 Valent Turkovic changed: What|Removed |Added CC||valent.turko...@gmail.com --- Comment #6 from Valent Turkovic 2009-12-02 12:34:27 EDT --- I would love to see this great app working in F11 and F12. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226442] Merge Review: swig
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226442 Miroslav Lichvar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mlich...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mlich...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 527549] Review Request: osm2go - A simple openstreetmap editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=527549 --- Comment #7 from Valent Turkovic 2009-12-02 12:56:28 EDT --- I created rpm from your src.rpm and installed it on Fedora 12. It runs nice from what I could see. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 543608] New: Review Request: udisks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: udisks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543608 Summary: Review Request: udisks Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dav...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://people.freedesktop.org/~david/udisks-pkg-review/20091202/udisks.spec SRPM URL: http://people.freedesktop.org/~david/udisks-pkg-review/20091202/udisks-1.0.0-0.git20091202.fc13.src.rpm Description: DeviceKit-disks recently got renamed to udisks, see http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/devkit-devel/2009-December/000567.html so it is only proper to change the Fedora package name too. This package will obsolete (and provide - for transitioning) DeviceKit-disks. It is important to note that DeviceKit-disks has never claimed to provide a stable ABI or API, see $ head -9 /usr/share/doc/DeviceKit-disks-009/NEWS --- DeviceKit-disks 009 --- DeviceKit-disks is a daemon that provide interfaces to obtain information and perform operations on storage devices. NOTE NOTE NOTE: This is an unstable release of DeviceKit-disks, all API is subject to change. $ rpm -qf /usr/share/doc/DeviceKit-disks-009/NEWS DeviceKit-disks-009-3.fc12.x86_64 so changing the name is no different than uploading a new DeviceKit-disks package. Note also that the new udisks packages provide slightly stronger ABI and API guarantees (see the mail linked to above) so packages using it should be able to do Requires: udisks >= 1.0. Requires: udisks < 1.1.0 instead of the mess we have today. The main user, gnome-disk-utility, will use udisks in the next version. The only other user of DeviceKit-disks (according to 'repoquery --whatrequires DeviceKit-disks') is the emelfm2 package. It should be easy for that package to transition (the gnome-disk-utility patch is ~200 lines - mostly just changing the D-Bus bus names and interfaces) and emelfm2 would have to _anyway_ because DeviceKit-disks never claimed to support any stable ABI or API - e.g. the next DeviceKit-disks version could have used a completely different ABI. The spec file is based on the existing DeviceKit-disks one with a few cleanups. $ rpmlint udisks.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ../SRPMS/udisks-1.0.0-0.git20091202.fc13.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/udisks-devel-1.0.0-0.git20091202.fc13.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/udisks-1.0.0-0.git20091202.fc13.x86_64.rpm udisks.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/udisks-bash-completion.sh udisks.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/udisks 0700 udisks.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dbus-1/system.d/org.freedesktop.UDisks.conf udisks.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/udisks 0700 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. Both warnings and errors should be waived - reasons o /etc/profile.d/udisks-bash-completion.sh isn't a config-file at all - it is a shell script for bash completion o /etc/dbus-1/system.d/org.freedesktop.UDisks.conf - if users/admins wants to override D-Bus config directives (they have no reason to do this though) they can drop files in /etc/dbus-1/system.d. Note that we have talked in the D-Bus project about using $datadir or $libdir for these kinds of files. It might happen. This is also the case for every other package using the D-Bus system bus. o /var/run/udisks and /var/lib/udisks needs these permissions because we don't want to disclose this data to other users (might be an information leak to let everyone know that a user has mounted a disk) Thanks for reviewing 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 542740] Review Request: f2c - The f2c Fortran to C/C++ conversion program and static libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542740 --- Comment #15 from Carl Byington 2009-12-02 13:02:30 EDT --- Ok for mpqc, but not f2c. rpm -q --requires f2c libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.7) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 it seems that f2c does not actually link against the libf2c shared libraries. Looking at the source, f2c itself does not use any of the code in libf2c. I think the c code *generated* by f2c needs the libf2c libraries. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 542740] Review Request: f2c - The f2c Fortran to C/C++ conversion program and static libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542740
--- Comment #16 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-12-02 13:12:11
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Ok for mpqc, but not f2c.
>
>
> it seems that f2c does not actually link against the libf2c shared libraries.
> Looking at the source, f2c itself does not use any of the code in libf2c. I
> think the c code *generated* by f2c needs the libf2c libraries.
Well.. That's odd. OK, maybe libf2c contains some intrinsic Fortran functions,
that are then called in the C code produced by f2c.
Anyway, this means you will have to put in explicit dependencies. Better yet to
version them fully. i.e. the main package has to
Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release}
and the devel package just
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
which pulls in f2c, which pulls in f2c-libs.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 541807] Review Request: rubygem-ParseTree - Extracts the parse tree for a class/method and returns an s-expression
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=541807 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-12-02 13:16:19 EDT --- Some notes: * Version specific dependency - I don't think ">= 3.7.0" ">= 3.0.0" is needed (as all rpms shipped on Fedora satisfies this dependency) ref: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires ! demo - I tried demo program, then: --- [tasa...@localhost ~]$ /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/ParseTree-3.0.4/demo/printer.rb /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/ParseTree-3.0.4/demo/printer.rb:20: uninitialized constant ParseTree (NameError) --- I don't know well the usefulness of this script, however at least "require 'parse_tree'" is missing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 543383] Review Request: emacs-irsim-mode - Irsim mode for emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543383 --- Comment #7 from Shakthi Kannan 2009-12-02 13:20:02 EDT --- s/if indentation./of indentation/g I have tested this package on Fedora 12 with Emacs 23.1-12 and it works fine! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 543549] Review Request: rubygem-haml - XHTML/XML templating engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549 --- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-12-02 13:38:54 EDT --- $ gem list -b haml returns that the latest is 2.2.15 and it seems to have been released on 2009-12-01. Would you update first? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476359] Review Request: compiz-fusion-unsupported - Unsupported Compiz Fusion plugins for Compiz
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476359 --- Comment #9 from leigh scott 2009-12-02 13:41:10 EDT --- Hi Felix, Bump :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 542740] Review Request: f2c - Fortran to C/C++ conversion 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=542740 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: f2c - The |Review Request: f2c - |f2c Fortran to C/C++|Fortran to C/C++ conversion |conversion program and |program |static libraries| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 541902] Review Request: almanah - Application for keeping an encrypted diary
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=541902
Simon Wesp changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Simon Wesp 2009-12-02
13:47:49 EDT ---
OK - MUST: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-12-ppc/result/*
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
OK - MUST: Named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK - MUST: Spec file name matches the base package %{name}
OK - MUST: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines
OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines.
OK - MUST: License field in spec file doesn't matches the actual license.
OK - MUST: License files included in %doc
OK - MUST: Spec is in American English
OK - MUST: Spec is legible
OK - MUST: Sources match the upstream source by MD5
cca92b59002fa9e0515287f3df38cb1c
OK - MUST: Successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on ppc
N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
OK - MUST: Handles locales properly with %find_lang
N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review.
OK - MUST: Owns all directories that it creates
OK - MUST: No duplicate files in the %files listing
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...)
OK - MUST: Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: Consistently uses macros
OK - MUST: Package contains code, or permissable content
N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application
N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package
N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package
N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig'.
N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix, then library
files that end in .so must go in a -devel package.
Doesn't make sense for this package
N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully
versioned dependency
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
N/A - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
OK - MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: All filenames valid UTF-8
SHOULD Items:
OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file.
N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK - SHOULD: Builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: Compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
N/A - SHOULD: Functions as described.
FIX - SHOULD: Scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
update icon cache scriplet is missing
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg
N/A - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,
/sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the
file instead of the file itself.
Other items:
OK - latest stable version
OK - SourceURL valid
OK - Compiler flags ok
OK - Debuginfo complete
Just some cosmetical things, before you include it in cvs
1.)
%{_datadir}/%{name}
please suggest that this is a directory and attach a / behind NAME
2.)
please try expand your description lines to 80 characters or one word less..
APPROVED
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 542754] Review Request: artha - A handy thesaurus based on WordNet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542754 --- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-12-02 13:52:53 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > (In reply to comment #6) > > > SPEC: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/artha/artha.spec > > > SRPM: > > > http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/artha/artha-0.9.1-2.fc11.src.rpm > > > > Connection timed out... > > Sorry there is a power outrage over here. I am trying to locate some other > possible location to upload it. Suggest if you have any place to do it. Only > web based uploads possible. Ah, okay. Now I am sponsoring you. Please check https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedorapeople.org and use fedorapeople.org site. > Should I revert the license to GPLv2 or should i keep GPLv2+. Judging from the source code, the license should be GPLv2+. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 524379] Review Request: gscribble - A desktop blogging client for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524379 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #40 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-12-02 13:55:02 EDT --- Now I am sponsoring you and will approve this package. This package (gscribble) is APPROVED by mtasaka Please follow the procedure written on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join from "Install the Client Tools (Koji)". If you want to import this package into Fedora 11/12, you also have to look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT (after once you rebuilt this package on koji Fedora rebuilding system). If you have questions, please ask me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 542028] Review Request: php-pear-Spreadsheet-Excel-Writer - Package for generating Excel spreadsheets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542028 --- Comment #6 from David Nalley 2009-12-02 13:55:37 EDT --- thanks for catching the %clean problem. I have updated spec/srpm to fix above problems and update to 0.9.2 SPEC: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/php-pear-Spreadsheet-Excel-Writer.spec SRPM: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/php-pear-Spreadsheet-Excel-Writer-0.9.2-1.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 542500] Review Request: php-pear-OLE - Package for reading and writing OLE containers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542500 --- Comment #2 from David Nalley 2009-12-02 14:00:27 EDT --- thanks for the review. I stripped that require, SPEC: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/php-pear-OLE.spec SRPM: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/php-pear-OLE-1.0.0-0.2.rc1.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 537431] Review Request: mono-bouncycastle - Bouncy Castle Crypto Package for Mono
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=537431
Thomas Janssen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||thom...@fedoraproject.org
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|thom...@fedoraproject.org
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Janssen 2009-12-02
14:03:04 EDT ---
+ rpmlint is fine for a mono package. The permission is needed to run the
script.
rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/mono-bouncycastle-1.5-3.fc11.x86_64.rpm
srpm-review-test/mono-bouncycastle-1.5-3.fc13.src.rpm
mono-bouncycastle.x86_64: E: no-binary
mono-bouncycastle.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
mono-bouncycastle.src: W: strange-permission bccrypto-generate-zip.sh 0755
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
+ The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
+ The spec file match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec
unless your package has an exemption.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
! The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
Part of the source states: Apache Software License 1.1 (ASL 1.1)
The Webpage says: MIT X11
Change the license to: MIT with ASL 1.1
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
md5 d400421918c0c20f2f53fa003e25eb11
+ It compiles
+ ExcludeArch done.
+ BuildRequires listed.
+ Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ Package owns all directories that it creates.
+ Permissions are set properly.
+ %clean section
+ Macros usage
+ The package must contain code, or permissable content.
+ %doc handling
+ At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
Package will be approved after you corrected the license field.
--
Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 543383] Review Request: emacs-irsim-mode - Irsim mode for emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543383 --- Comment #8 from Chitlesh GOORAH 2009-12-02 14:13:18 EDT --- #006 You don't need to create scratch for everytime you post your SRPM. The main idea of doing a scratch built is to verify whether you have all the buildrequires on your spec file. One scratch build is enough. #007 I would advice to autoload irsim-mode for - "*.cmd" - "*.simout" - "*.flt" - "*.sim" files 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 543383] Review Request: emacs-irsim-mode - Irsim mode for emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543383
--- Comment #9 from Chitlesh GOORAH 2009-12-02 14:18:25
EDT ---
#008 Preserve timestamps
Your
cp %{SOURCE0} %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}
cp %{SOURCE1} %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}
should be
cp -p %{SOURCE0} %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}
cp -p %{SOURCE1} %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}
so should be your
%{__install} -m
to
%{__install} -pm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 543608] Review Request: udisks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543608 --- Comment #1 from David Zeuthen 2009-12-02 14:23:13 EDT --- For good measure, the original DeviceKit-disks review was bug 456033. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 537431] Review Request: mono-bouncycastle - Bouncy Castle Crypto Package for Mono
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=537431 --- Comment #6 from Kalev Lember 2009-12-02 14:41:27 EDT --- Thanks for the review, Thomas! My main reason for packaging bouncycastle was to get iTextSharp [1] included in Fedora. However, ASL 1.1 would make those two libraries incompatible. I sent a mail [2] to bouncycastle csharp development mailing list, asking if it would be possible to relicense the ASL 1.1 bits under ASL 2.0 instead. Anyway, this doesn't prevent from completing mono-bouncycastle review. According to Licensing Guidelines [3], separator between multiple licenses should be 'and', so I changed the License tag to read 'MIT and ASL 1.1'. Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/mono-bouncycastle.spec SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/mono-bouncycastle-1.5-4.fc13.src.rpm [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=537437 [2] http://www.bouncycastle.org/csharpdevmailarchive/msg00370.html [3] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 543549] Review Request: rubygem-haml - XHTML/XML templating engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543549 --- Comment #2 from Michal Babej 2009-12-02 14:42:15 EDT --- Done. Updated packages are at the same place (http://mogurakun.web.runbox.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 499476] Review Request: orbited - A browser(javascript)->tcp bridge
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499476 Mike McGrath changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mmcgr...@redhat.com --- Comment #10 from Mike McGrath 2009-12-02 14:43:02 EDT --- Seems this also needs python-setuptools: /usr/bin/orbited -c orbited.cfg Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/orbited", line 5, in ? from pkg_resources import load_entry_point ImportError: No module named pkg_resources -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226552] Merge Review: xdelta
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226552 manuel wolfshant changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE --- Comment #6 from manuel wolfshant 2009-12-02 15:04:46 EDT --- Indeed, most of the issues are solved. However there are 2 cosmetic issues left which would be nice to see fixed (especially the first one): - please either remove the buildroot line completely or use one of the forms accepted by http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag - there are duplicate BuildRequires: pkgconfig (by glib2-devel), automake (by libtool), autoconf (by libtool) Since both issues are purely cosmetic now, I'll leave their fixing to your appreciation. Closing the review as done and fixed. Thank you, Adam. -- 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 529255] Review Request: i3lock - A slightly improved version of slock
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529255 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2009-12-02 15:08:43 EDT --- i3lock-1.0-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/i3lock-1.0-1.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 529254] Review Request: i3 - Improved tiling window 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=529254 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2009-12-02 15:08:37 EDT --- i3-3.d-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/i3-3.d-1.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 529256] Review Request: i3status - Generates a status line for dzen2 or wmii
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529256 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2009-12-02 15:08:52 EDT --- i3status-2.0-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/i3status-2.0-1.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 537431] Review Request: mono-bouncycastle - Bouncy Castle Crypto Package for Mono
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=537431 Thomas Janssen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Thomas Janssen 2009-12-02 15:12:10 EDT --- *Approved* -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 543608] Review Request: udisks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543608 --- Comment #2 from David Zeuthen 2009-12-02 15:12:02 EDT --- FYI, the gnome-disk-utility package cvs has been updated to use udisks - I can't build the package until udisks is available in the build roots though. Anyway, once you install udisks (which will remove DeviceKit-disks in the process) you want the new gnome-disk-utility packages in order for GVfs/Nautilus to keep working. Normal users won't see this problem unless they specifically install udisks. Once the new gnome-disk-utilities packages are built users will transition without any problems. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 540617] Review Request: django-lint - lint for (python) django web-framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=540617 --- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge 2009-12-02 15:24:04 EDT --- Graeme, thank you for your review. I've corrected those issues: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/django-lint-0.11-4.fc12.src.rpm and http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/django-lint.spec [mru...@sofja SPECS]$ rpmlint django-lint.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [mru...@sofja SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/django-lint-0.11-4.fc12.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [mru...@sofja SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/django-lint-0.11-4.fc12.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Should be fine 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 537431] Review Request: mono-bouncycastle - Bouncy Castle Crypto Package for Mono
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=537431 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Kalev Lember 2009-12-02 15:43:25 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mono-bouncycastle Short Description: Bouncy Castle Crypto Package for Mono Owners: kalev Branches: F-11 F-12 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 543685] New: Package review: libnes - Driver library for libibverbs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Package review: libnes - Driver library for libibverbs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543685 Summary: Package review: libnes - Driver library for libibverbs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dledf...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- libnes is a simple package that provides a low level hardware driver for the libibverbs package. The current package requires libibverbs-1.1.3 or later to compile, and prebuilt versions as well as the spec file and srpm can be found on my person web page at: http://xsintricity.com/dledford/Package_Review/ rpmlint shows the following: [dledf...@firewall rpmbuild]$ rpmlint SRPMS/libnes-0.9.0-1.fc12.src.rpm RPMS/x86_64/libnes-* libnes.src:12: W: unversioned-explicit-provides libibverbs-driver libnes.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/libibverbs.d/nes.driver libnes-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. The first one is correct as it's a psuedo provides that only exists for the purpose of causing a yum install of libibverbs to pull in all the hardware drivers that make libibverbs operate. The second is a side effect of the libibverbs package. It requires the file in this location, but the file is not user changable and should not therefore be labeled as a conf file. The final one is because the -static package only has one file, the static library. All the docs are in the base 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 543689] New: Package review: libipathverbs - Driver library for libibverbs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Package review: libipathverbs - Driver library for libibverbs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543689 Summary: Package review: libipathverbs - Driver library for libibverbs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dledf...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- libipathverbs is a simple package that provides a low level hardware driver for the libibverbs package. The current package requires libibverbs-1.1.3 or later to compile, and prebuilt versions as well as the spec file and srpm can be found on my person web page at: http://xsintricity.com/dledford/Package_Review/ rpmlint shows the following: [dledf...@firewall Package_Review]$ rpmlint libipathverbs* libipathverbs.src:11: W: unversioned-explicit-provides libibverbs-driver libipathverbs.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/libibverbs.d/ipath.driver libipathverbs.spec:11: W: unversioned-explicit-provides libibverbs-driver libipathverbs-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. [dledf...@firewall Package_Review]$ The first and third ones are correct as it's a psuedo provides that only exists for the purpose of causing a yum install of libibverbs to pull in all the hardware drivers that make libibverbs operate. The second is a side effect of the libibverbs package. It requires the file in this location, but the file is not user changable and should not therefore be labeled as a conf file. The final one is because the -static package only has one file, the static library. All the docs are in the base 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 542500] Review Request: php-pear-OLE - Package for reading and writing OLE containers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542500 --- Comment #4 from Remi Collet 2009-12-02 16:16:36 EDT --- Koji scratch build : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1844660 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 542500] Review Request: php-pear-OLE - Package for reading and writing OLE containers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542500 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
