[Bug 549189] Review Request: Djagios - Djagios is an open source Nagios web based configuration tool with a complete Python Nagios 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=549189 --- Comment #6 from Kris Buytaert kris.buyta...@inuits.be 2009-12-22 03:19:01 EDT --- Files are up2date on http://www.krisbuytaert.be/download/djagios-0.1.3-1.src.rpm http://www.krisbuytaert.be/download/djagios.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 546147] Merge Review: kasumi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=546147
--- Comment #5 from Akira TAGOH ta...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 03:37:40 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
* SourceURL
- I guess the following works.
http://dl.sourceforge.jp/kasumi/41436/kasumi-2.5.tar.gz
FWIW I just had a chance to talk about this with OSDN guy though, starting a
download with the above URL isn't expected behaviour it seems. I'll revert this
change because it may be changed in the future and safe to access the mirror
site directly.
(In reply to comment #3)
Then now please use desktop-file-{install,validate}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files
By the way
- Application in Category is deprecated and should be removed:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-October/msg00723.html
- It is better that Icon=kasumi instead of using Icon=kasumi.png
All the above fixed in CVS.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 539863] Review Request: perl-Pod-PseudoPod - Extending the POD tags for book manuscripts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539863 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-22 04:18:50 EDT --- perl-Pod-PseudoPod-0.15-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Pod-PseudoPod-0.15-1.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 539863] Review Request: perl-Pod-PseudoPod - Extending the POD tags for book manuscripts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539863 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-22 04:31:56 EDT --- perl-Pod-PseudoPod-0.15-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Pod-PseudoPod-0.15-1.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 508817] Review Request: Limesurvey - An open source survey application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508817 Felix Kaechele fe...@fetzig.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fe...@fetzig.org --- Comment #11 from Felix Kaechele fe...@fetzig.org 2009-12-22 04:41:29 EDT --- Please let me know if you need more help with this (packaging/reviewing). Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 529375] Review Request: emerillon - A map viewer 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=529375
--- Comment #9 from Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-22
05:25:03 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
$RPM_BUILD_DIR is not the same as %{buildroot}.
this is correct
I'm not sure of the newer style macro for BUILD_DIR
%{builddir}
Please take a look in /usr/lib/rpm/macros (LINE 836)
(In reply to comment #7)
Simon, is this package okay?
just a few notes...
Peter, perhaps it is better to use the name-macro instead of the name in the
file list!
It would be nice if you could add a / to the directories in the filelist.
%{_bindir}/%{name}
%{_libdir}/%{name}
both looks like a file
%{_bindir}/%{name}
%{_libdir}/%{name}/
differs directory and file
in the includedir you should use a * instead of the versionnumber. it's
easier for an update.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 529374] Review Request: ethos - Plugin framework for GLib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529374
--- Comment #10 from Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-22
05:24:48 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #9)
I would say this is ready for repo, now.
Simon, what do you think?
I disagree with you
%{_libdir}/python2.6/site-packages/gtk-2.0/_ethos.so
this is ugly. please use:
%{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib(1)))}
in the head of your spec and then
%{python_sitelib}/gtk-*/_%{name}.so
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
you should use %{name} instead of the name and you should use the * instead
of version numbers. It's easier for an mass rebuild; like a pygtk update. for
example the new path will be gkt-3.0 your specfile is valid for this and it is
nor required to edit it.
Please add a / to the directories in your filelists, it's easier to differ
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 538297] Review Request: openvas-server - Open Vulnerability Assessment (OpenVAS) Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538297 Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala huzai...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||huzai...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala huzai...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 05:46:22 EDT --- I am going to co-maintain the openvas stack. Now that openvas-libnasl is in rawhide we can go ahead with the other builds. Stejpan, I made a few changes to your spec and did a rawhide build. SPEC: http://huzaifas.fedorapeople.org/spec/openvas-server.spec SRPM: http://huzaifas.fedorapeople.org/srpms/openvas-server-2.0.3-2.fc10.src.rpm Rawhide build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1885712 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 538297] Review Request: openvas-server - Open Vulnerability Assessment (OpenVAS) Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538297 Bug 538297 depends on bug 538296, which changed state. Bug 538296 Summary: Review Request: openvas-libnasl - Support for NASL scripting language in OpenVAS Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538296 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 538298] Review Request: openvas-plugins - Security check plugins for OpenVAS server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538298 Bug 538298 depends on bug 538296, which changed state. Bug 538296 Summary: Review Request: openvas-libnasl - Support for NASL scripting language in OpenVAS Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538296 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Resolution||RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 529375] Review Request: emerillon - A map viewer 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=529375
--- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-12-22
05:48:27 EDT ---
By the way
-
# Copy in license from upstream git
cp %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}
-
can be simplified as
-
cp -p %{SOURCE1} .
-
(please keep timestamps with adding -p option)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 538296] Review Request: openvas-libnasl - Support for NASL scripting language in OpenVAS Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538296 Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala huzai...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #11 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala huzai...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 05:50:41 EDT --- build for rawhide. Closing this bug -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 541494] Review Request: openvas-client : openvas-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=541494 Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala huzai...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #3 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala huzai...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 06:02:19 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 538299 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 538299] Review Request: openvas-client - Client component of Open Vulnerability Assessment (OpenVAS) Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538299 Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala huzai...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||huzai...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala huzai...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 06:02:19 EDT --- *** Bug 541494 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 529253] Review Request: dmenu - Generic menu for X
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529253
Andreas Osowski th0...@mkdir.name changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Osowski th0...@mkdir.name 2009-12-22 06:57:47
EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on:
[x] F12/i686
[x] Rpmlint output:
Source RPM:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Binary RPM(s):
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: MIT
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: 6fb1ff6e414d5ef33d2f627b0ec563eaac19fbd8
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: F12/i686
[-] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: -
[-] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
Remaining issues:
NONE.
**
** APPROVED **
**
*
/.\
/..'\
/'.'\
/.''.'\
/.'.'.\
'/'.''.'.\''
jgs ^^^[_]^^^
:)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 546868] Review Request: clac - Command Line Advanced Calculator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=546868 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-22 07:10:36 EDT --- clac-004-1.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/clac-004-1.el4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 508817] Review Request: Limesurvey - An open source survey application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508817 --- Comment #12 from Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us 2009-12-22 07:08:31 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) Please let me know if you need more help with this (packaging/reviewing). Thanks. Thanks for the offer. Any bug that blocks this ticket is probably in need of a review. I know that bug 549590 and bug 549604 are in need of a review which will help out with this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 546868] Review Request: clac - Command Line Advanced Calculator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=546868 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-22 07:10:51 EDT --- clac-004-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/clac-004-1.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 549366] Review Request: flaw - F.L.A.W is a small multiplayer action game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549366 Filipe Rosset rosset.fil...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(rosset.fil...@gma | |il.com) | --- Comment #3 from Filipe Rosset rosset.fil...@gmail.com 2009-12-22 07:13:52 EDT --- Spec URL: http://filiperosset.fedorapeople.org/packages/flaw/flaw.spec SRPM URL: http://filiperosset.fedorapeople.org/packages/flaw/flaw-1.2-2.fc12.src.rpm New files with the corrections identified in comments 1 and 2. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 548180] Review Request: hostapd - IEEE 802.11 AP, IEEE 802.1X/WPA/WPA2/EAP/RADIUS Authenticator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=548180 --- Comment #19 from Göran Uddeborg goe...@uddeborg.se 2009-12-22 07:16:44 EDT --- FYI: I picked up hostapd-0.6.9-6.fc12.x86_64 from Koji and tried with the ath5k driver and a Nintendo Wii on the other end. Worked fine! :-) I don't know why I couldn't get it to work with my previous local build. But it's always good with folks that know what they are doing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 529253] Review Request: dmenu - Generic menu for X
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529253 Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 529253] Review Request: dmenu - Generic menu for X
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529253 --- Comment #4 from Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-22 07:18:49 EDT --- nice ascii thx for your review New Package CVS Request === Package Name: dmenu Short Description: Generic menu for X Owners: cassmodiah 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 549496] Review Request: bakefile - A cross-platform, cross-compiler native makefiles generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549496 Filipe Rosset rosset.fil...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: bakefile - |Review Request: bakefile - |is cross-platform, |A cross-platform, |cross-compiler native |cross-compiler native |makefiles generator |makefiles generator -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226117] Merge Review: mailman
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226117 --- Comment #21 from Daniel Novotny dnovo...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 08:04:36 EDT --- http://people.fedoraproject.org/~dnovotny/f/mailman.spec http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1885973 -- 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 549709] New: Review Request: libgnome-keyring - Framework for managing passwords and other secrets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: libgnome-keyring - Framework for managing passwords and other secrets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549709 Summary: Review Request: libgnome-keyring - Framework for managing passwords and other secrets Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: tbza...@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://tbzatek.fedorapeople.org/libgnome-keyring/libgnome-keyring.spec SRPM URL: http://tbzatek.fedorapeople.org/libgnome-keyring/libgnome-keyring-2.29.4-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: gnome-keyring is a program that keep password and other secrets for users. The library libgnome-keyring is used by applications to integrate with the gnome-keyring system. -- Basically, this is a split of gnome-keyring (recent upstream decision), creating separate library with the core. Feel free to propose better description, I'm bad with that. rpmlint passes without warning, package builds fine in koji. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 549496] Review Request: bakefile - A cross-platform, cross-compiler native makefiles generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549496 --- Comment #5 from Filipe Rosset rosset.fil...@gmail.com 2009-12-22 08:00:31 EDT --- Spec URL: http://filiperosset.fedorapeople.org/packages/bakefile/bakefile.spec SRPM URL: http://filiperosset.fedorapeople.org/packages/bakefile/bakefile-0.2.8-2.fc12.src.rpm New files with the corrections suggested in comments 1, 2 and 3. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226117] Merge Review: mailman
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226117 --- Comment #20 from Daniel Novotny dnovo...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 08:03:00 EDT --- ok, built mailman-2.1.12-13.fc13 with not default on patch. you can search for rpmlint in the spec for the comments you requested -- 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 518586] Review Request: gdata-sharp - .NET library for the Google Data 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=518586 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-22 08:04:44 EDT --- gdata-sharp-1.4.0.2-3.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gdata-sharp-1.4.0.2-3.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 518586] Review Request: gdata-sharp - .NET library for the Google Data 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=518586 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-22 08:04:38 EDT --- gdata-sharp-1.4.0.2-3.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gdata-sharp-1.4.0.2-3.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 548607] Review Request: pvs-sbcl - SRI's Prototype Verification System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=548607 --- Comment #7 from David A. Wheeler dwhee...@dwheeler.com 2009-12-22 08:14:31 EDT --- I changed the prelink line to: prelink -u ./sbcl || true and re-ran rpmbuild -ba pvs-sbcl.spec. Again, after more than 12 hours it's stuck. I did a set | grep PVS ; this system doesn't have *any* environment variables with PVS in the name. So that can't be the problem. Again, it's a 32-bit system. I suspect that this build doesn't work on 32-bit systems. Don't know why. = ; (SB-RUNTIME::PRINT-STRUCT SB-RUNTIME::SELF STREAM SB-RUNTIME::TOKEN :KIND ; :SUBKIND :VALUE :STR-VALUE) ; ; caught WARNING: ; undefined variable: SB-RUNTIME:TOKEN ; ; compilation unit finished ; Undefined functions: ; SB-RUNTIME:AW-TERM ERGO-DISKSAVE SB-RUNTIME::PRINT-STRUCT ; Undefined variables: ; SB-RUNTIME:*FORMATTING-OFF* PVS::*UNTYPECHECK-HOOK* SB-RUNTIME::BP SB-RUNTIME::CHARNUMBER SB-RUNTIME::LINENUMBER SB-RUNTIME::LINETEXT SB-RUNTIME:TOKEN ; caught 8 WARNING conditions ; caught 8 STYLE-WARNING conditions [undoing binding stack and other enclosing state... done] [saving current Lisp image into bin/ix86-Linux/runtime/pvs-sbclisp: writing 3432 bytes from the read-only space at 0x0100 writing 2256 bytes from the static space at 0x0110 writing 92459008 bytes from the dynamic space at 0x0900 done] rm /home/dwheeler/rpmbuild/BUILD/pvs-4.2/BDD/ix86-Linux/bdd-sbcl.* rm: cannot remove `/home/dwheeler/rpmbuild/BUILD/pvs-4.2/BDD/ix86-Linux/bdd-sbcl.*': No such file or directory make: [bin/ix86-Linux/runtime/pvs-sbclisp] Error 1 (ignored) cp /home/dwheeler/rpmbuild/BUILD/pvs-4.2/sbcl bin/ix86-Linux/runtime/ cp /home/dwheeler/rpmbuild/BUILD/pvs-4.2/BDD/ix86-Linux/mu.so bin/ix86-Linux/runtime/ cp /home/dwheeler/rpmbuild/BUILD/pvs-4.2/BDD/bdd-sbcl.lisp /home/dwheeler/rpmbuild/BUILD/pvs-4.2/BDD/mu-sbcl.lisp bin/ix86-Linux/runtime/ cp /home/dwheeler/rpmbuild/BUILD/pvs-4.2/src/WS1S/ix86-Linux/ws1s.so bin/ix86-Linux/runtime/ cp /home/dwheeler/rpmbuild/BUILD/pvs-4.2/src/WS1S/lisp/dfa-foreign-sbcl.lisp bin/ix86-Linux/runtime/ cp /home/dwheeler/rpmbuild/BUILD/pvs-4.2/src/utils/ix86-Linux/b64 bin/ix86-Linux ./pvs -batch -l emacs/emacs-src/pvs-set-prelude-info.el \ -f set-prelude-files-and-regions Loading /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/site-start.d/focus-init.el (source)... Loading /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/site-start.d/php-mode-init.el (source)... Loading /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/site-start.d/po-mode-init.el (source)... Loading /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/site-start.d/rpm-spec-mode-init.el (source)... Loading /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/site-start.d/rpmdev-init.el (source)... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 548607] Review Request: pvs-sbcl - SRI's Prototype Verification System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=548607 --- Comment #8 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2009-12-22 08:29:51 EDT --- mind you, the prelink hackery shouldn't be required in any mock/koji builds (only on live prelinked systems). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 547993] Package Name Change: jconvolver - Real-time Convolution 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=547993 --- Comment #8 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-12-22 09:17:50 EDT --- Hi, I know fonts is not the best example. That's why I tried to emphasize that they were imaginary special fonts. Oh well... I still didn't get a response from the author. I'm removing the reverbs for now. I'll re-add them once the license is cleared up. Spec URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/jconvolver.spec SRPM URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/jconvolver-0.8.4-2.fc12.src.rpm - You don't have to update seperated subpackage when you apply some patches against main package This is no big problem since we have deltarpms now :) As I said this is my choice. If there were multiple possible plugins available then I would probably not bundle any of them. But there is only 1 available in this case. And this was the way this has been packaged for a while, even before I took over the package. I assume that people using this software expect the reverbs to be there by 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 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 Daniel Novotny dnovo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tsmet...@redhat.com --- Comment #5 from Daniel Novotny dnovo...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 09:27:00 EDT --- OK, the URL and Source links can be added. About the licensing problem: I e-mailed the author of the package, whether he has some more information about this. The files are used in fixmacps utility, which fixes PostScript files generated on Mac computers. If the license will still be a problem, we will have to exclude this utility and these two files from the package. p.s. I have uploaded http://people.fedoraproject.org/~dnovotny/f/psutils.spec with the latest changes (currently added URL and Source) -- 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 538360] Review Request: perl-CPAN-Inject - Base class for injecting distributions into CPAN sources
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538360 --- Comment #2 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 09:49:04 EDT --- Fixed: http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-CPAN-Inject-0.11-2.fc12.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1886066 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 549709] Review Request: libgnome-keyring - Framework for managing passwords and other secrets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549709 Tomáš Bžatek tbza...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|medium |high --- Comment #1 from Tomáš Bžatek tbza...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 09:51:28 EDT --- Forgot to add that we will have to add libgnome-keyring dependency to all g-k clients and fix tons of packages in Fedora. This will effectively make decent mess once libgnome-keyring and new gnome-keyring packages will hit rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 549709] Review Request: libgnome-keyring - Framework for managing passwords and other secrets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549709 Bastien Nocera bnoc...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bnoc...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Bastien Nocera bnoc...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 09:55:14 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) Forgot to add that we will have to add libgnome-keyring dependency to all g-k clients and fix tons of packages in Fedora. This will effectively make decent mess once libgnome-keyring and new gnome-keyring packages will hit rawhide. Not really. Make the library depend on gnome-keyring, voila. You'd probably have a problem with bootstrapping gnome-keyring from scratch if it depends on libgnome-keyring, but that's relatively minor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 549709] Review Request: libgnome-keyring - Framework for managing passwords and other secrets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549709 --- Comment #3 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 10:02:10 EDT --- You still need a libgnome-keyring-devel BR everywhere... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 549709] Review Request: libgnome-keyring - Framework for managing passwords and other secrets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549709 --- Comment #4 from Tomáš Bžatek tbza...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 10:11:19 EDT --- Right, we can add explicit Require: libgnome-keyring-devel to the gnome-keyring-devel, that might do the trick for the moment. FYI, we have bootstrapping problems in Fedora anyway, circular BR dependency nautilus -- gnome-disk-utility (pulled in by gvfs, which nautilus depends on), but that's another story. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 251545] Review Request: setroubleshoot-plugins - analysis plugins for setroubleshoot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251545 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED CC||lemen...@gmail.com Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #10 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-12-22 10:18:39 EDT --- It seems that someone forgot to close this ticket :). I'm sure we can close it now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 529374] Review Request: ethos - Plugin framework for GLib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529374
--- Comment #11 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2009-12-22 10:26:47
EDT ---
%{python_sitelib}/gtk-*/_%{name}.so
Actually the above needs to be %{python_sitearch} otherwise is doesn't find the
files when built in koji. Rest updated.
New updated:
SPEC: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/ethos.spec
SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/ethos-0.2.2-3.fc12.src.rpm
koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1886156
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 529375] Review Request: emerillon - A map viewer 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=529375 --- Comment #11 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2009-12-22 10:29:30 EDT --- Updated: SPEC: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/emerillon.spec SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/emerillon-0.1.0-4.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 487097] Review Request: ReviewBoard - web based code review tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487097 --- Comment #21 from Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 10:35:57 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=379845) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=379845) rpmlint output for 1.0.5.1 RPM Scratch build successfully performed for Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1886173 Scratch build successfully performed for Fedora 12: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1886175 rpmlint output attached. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 #12 from David Nalley da...@gnsa.us 2009-12-22 10:32:36 EDT --- Closing this ticket as this has been pushed to stable -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 David Nalley da...@gnsa.us changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||ERRATA -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 508817] Review Request: Limesurvey - An open source survey application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508817 Bug 508817 depends on bug 542028, which changed state. Bug 542028 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Spreadsheet-Excel-Writer - Package for generating Excel spreadsheets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542028 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||ERRATA -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487097] Review Request: ReviewBoard - web based code review tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487097 Dave Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dmalc...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #22 from Dave Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 11:19:14 EDT --- I'll have a go at 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 519221] Review Request: rfkill - A tool to query the state of RF kill interfaces
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=519221 John W. Linville linvi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from John W. Linville linvi...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 11:25:31 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: rfkill New Branches: EL-5 Owners: linville -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487097] Review Request: ReviewBoard - web based code review tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487097 --- Comment #23 from Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 11:36:45 EDT --- For the record, this SRPM also builds successfully against EPEL5 ( http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1886304 ), though we would certainly need to build its dependencies 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 522148] Review Request: sound-theme-fedora - Sound theme for Fedora
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522148 udo udo...@xs4all.nl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||udo...@xs4all.nl --- Comment #9 from udo udo...@xs4all.nl 2009-12-22 11:39:44 EDT --- Another piece of nice work lost. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538617 for the effects of this neglect. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499987] Review Request: mingw32-curl - MinGW Windows port of curl and libcurl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499987 Daniel Berrange berra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||berra...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Daniel Berrange berra...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 11:45:09 EDT --- # See nss/README for the status of this package. #BuildRequires: mingw32-nss # Temporarily we can use OpenSSL instead of NSS: BuildRequires: mingw32-openssl IIUC this will cause license compatibility problems for some apps using libcurl. OpenSSL is not GPL compatible unless the app has declared an exception for OpenSSL, so if libcurl uses OpenSSL instead of NSS, AFAICT, GPL apps won't be able to use it. This would prevent mingw32-libvirt using it for example. In addition this is causing mingw32-curl to deviate from native curl which is something we want to avoid with Mingw32. IMHO this package needs to be made to use mingw32-nss before approval -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193894] Review Request: ant-contrib - A collection of tasks for Ant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=193894 --- Comment #23 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com 2009-12-22 11:49:17 EDT --- EL-5 update request has been made. Thanks. -- 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 487097] Review Request: ReviewBoard - web based code review tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487097
--- Comment #24 from Dave Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 12:45:45
EDT ---
This is looking good, with 4 issues that need attention (see below).
As I understand things, as this review was opened by Ramez, he would be the
initial owner as things stand. However it appears from comment #8 that he may
be rather busy.
I spoke with Stephen today and he's keen to get this into Fedora ASAP.
Stephen: are you happy to maintain this?
Ramez: are you still interested in maintaining this package within Fedora?
Dan: are you interested in (co)maintaining it?
So we may want to complete the review part of the review, have Stephen open a
fresh review request, close this one as dup of the new, and grandfather in
the work done here. Does that sound OK?
= Issues needing attention =
(i) installation issue on F-12
Stephen's F12 scratch build doesn't install on my laptop F-12 with updates
enabled, but not updates-testing:
Error: Missing Dependency: Django = 1.1.1 is needed by package
ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-1.fc12.noarch (/ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-1.fc12.noarch)
Error: Missing Dependency: python-djblets = 0.5-0.1.rc1 is needed by package
ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-1.fc12.noarch (/ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-1.fc12.noarch)
- latest version of Django in F-12 updates is Django-1.1-4.fc12
- python-djblets doesn't seem to actually be in fedora-updates for f12 yet
Stephen: do you have this installed and working on a machine?
(ii) Source0: URL is 404; need to be changed to:
http://downloads.reviewboard.org/releases/%{name}/1.0/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
(see http://downloads.reviewboard.org/releases/ReviewBoard/1.0/ ; I notice
there's a 1.1 directory as well FWIW)
(iii) desktop files: the rb-site executable has a PyGTK GUI, so would normally
require us to ship a .desktop file. However it can only be run when supplied a
directory as a command-line argument, hence it wouldn't be meaningful to create
a .desktop file for it. So this is OK, but please add a comment about the
exception to the specfile.
(iv) Does the package embed all of the requirements for the various SCM
backends? (How well does this work with git?) (not easy to check this without
a working install)
= Notes =
Filesystem layout: upstream have structured this code as a library and
supporting tools that can be used to create (potentially) multiple local
instances of ReviewBoard on a host, each stored in an arbitrary directory on
the filesystem. All information for a specific instance (e.g. config, logs,
tmp) goes below a particular directory for that instance (rather than e.g.
/etc). I think it's acceptable for our package to reflect how upstream have
structured this.
= Reviewed items =
- naming: name matches that of upstream tarball
- specfile name is good
- packaging guidelines:
- N-V-R looks good
- licensing MIT in spec matches that of README and of setup.py
- spec is legible
- spec follow python norms
- changelog: OK
- tags: OK
- buildroot path uses 2nd recommendation in guidelines
- buildroot is cleaned
- %clean is present and correct
- buildrequirements: successfully scratch-built in Koji
- textual documentation present in built RPM below
/usr/share/doc/ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1
- compiler flags/debuginfo packages/devel packages: N/A
- pkgconfig: N/A
- shared libraries: N/A
- packaging static libraries: N/A
- dup of system libraries: doesn't seem to
- rpath: N/A for pure python code
- config files: see note about FHS above
- initscripts: N/A
- macros: OK
- locale handling: no translations present in upstream source
- scriptlets: N/A
- code vs content: OK
- file and dir ownership: OK
- users and groups: doesn't have its own user
- web app: uses /usr/lib/python for its data, which seems reasonable
- /srv: OK
- patches: none yet
- epochs: OK
- Python-specific guidelines: OK
- license: OK
- specfile is legible
- MD5sum: OK
- tarball in srpm:
16947ddda7ec9df41f243949ec83a950 ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1.tar.gz
- tarball from upstream:
16947ddda7ec9df41f243949ec83a950 ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1.tar.gz
- rest of the MUST items covered above
- I've tested an earlier version of the rpm and it functions
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 548607] Review Request: pvs-sbcl - SRI's Prototype Verification System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=548607 --- Comment #9 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com 2009-12-22 12:44:12 EDT --- Comment 5: I did tell Sam Owre that I was doing this. The comment in the spec file about not sending it upstream is therefore not completely accurate; I just don't expect upstream to apply it. They are concentrated on providing a single download for researchers to grab, unpack, and get to work. Finding dependencies would just complicate matters for them. I renamed the binary from pvs to pvs-sbcl to avoid a name collision (see my response to comment 2 in comment 4). So when I talked about the Provide, I was really only talking about the Provide, not the binary name. The build hang has nothing to do with 32-bit vs. 64-bit systems, although I have never seen that hang with 64-bit Emacs (but have with 64-bit XEmacs). The problem is that (X)Emacs is forking off a subprocess to run PVS, but isn't noticing when that process exits, and therefore waits forever. Stephen Turnbull believes that this is a bug in X (see the URL in comment 4). In any case, I believe I have found a workaround to the problem. Briefly, I'm replacing (sit-for 1), which doesn't always notice changes in process status, with (accept-process-output nil 1), which does. Comments 6 through 8: I have applied the || true change to the spec file to avoid killing the build with an unprelinked sbcl binary. New URLs: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/pvs/pvs-sbcl.spec http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/pvs/pvs-sbcl-4.2-2.20091008svn.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 226117] Merge Review: mailman
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226117 --- Comment #22 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2009-12-22 12:51:22 EDT --- Ok, thanks, looks great. Any thoughts on #13 and #15? -- 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 549809] New: Review Request: mingw32-libzip - mingw32 port of libzip
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mingw32-libzip - mingw32 port of libzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549809 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-libzip - mingw32 port of libzip Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: d...@adsllc.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://adsllc.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SPECS/mingw32-libzip.spec SRPM URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1886662name=mingw32-libzip-0.9-1.fc12.src.rpm Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1886662 Description: mingw32 port of the C library for reading, creating, and modifying zip archives. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 521255] New package for Dogtag PKI: pki-selinux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521255 --- Comment #16 from Kevin Wright kwri...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 13:02:53 EDT --- corrected the url for the spec file and srpm: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/kwright/pki-selinux/pki-selinux.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/kwright/pki-selinux/pki-selinux-1.3.0-4.fc11.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 522207] New Package for Dogtag PKI: pki-common
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522207 --- Comment #6 from Kevin Wright kwri...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 13:10:17 EDT --- both dependencies (pki-util dogtag-pki-common-ui have been built in koji: see http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=147450 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=148080 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 549809] Review Request: mingw32-libzip - mingw32 port of libzip
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549809 --- Comment #1 from Dave Ludlow d...@adsllc.com 2009-12-22 13:19:17 EDT --- Fixed a copy/paste error in the changelog. Spec URL: http://adsllc.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SPECS/mingw32-libzip.spec SRPM URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1886687name=mingw32-libzip-0.9-1.fc12.src.rpm Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1886687 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 549809] Review Request: mingw32-libzip - mingw32 port of libzip
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549809
Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||lemen...@gmail.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-12-22 13:36:55
EDT ---
REVIEW:
+ rpmlint is silent
[pe...@sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ~/Desktop/mingw32-libzip-0.9-1.fc12.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[pe...@sulaco SPECS]$
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
0 Upstream doesn't provide the file, containing the text of the license(s) for
the package.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[pe...@sulaco SOURCES]$ sha256sum libzip-0.9.tar.gz*
b0d0a768f9ef8fef14683adade0b819549dd3e61b9a5bf8ab8a92e378d87a05f
libzip-0.9.tar.gz
b0d0a768f9ef8fef14683adade0b819549dd3e61b9a5bf8ab8a92e378d87a05f
libzip-0.9.tar.gz.1
[pe...@sulaco SOURCES]$
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1886694
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No need to run ldconfig for mingw32 libraries.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No need to separate header files from main package for mingw32-related
package.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
0 No devel sub-package for mingw32 packages, since they are intended for devel
entirely.
0 The mingw32 package may contain necessary .la libtool archives. This is not a
blocker.
0 Not a GUI application.
- The package DOES own files or directories already owned by other packages.
Please, instead of adding whole %{_mingw32_libdir}/ add only
%{_mingw32_libdir}/libzip.dll.a
%{_mingw32_libdir}/pkgconfig/libzip.pc
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
So, please, fix the only issue with alread owned directories and I'll continue.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 549821] New: Review Request: dcap - Client Tools for dCache
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: dcap - Client Tools for dCache https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549821 Summary: Review Request: dcap - Client Tools for dCache Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/dcap.spec SRPM URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/dcap-1.2.44-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: dCache is a distributed mass storage system. This package contains the client library and tools. rpmlint output: $ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/dcap-*1.2.44-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm rpmbuild/SRPMS/dcap-1.2.44-1.fc12.src.rpm dcap.x86_64: W: no-documentation dcap-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation dcap-tunnel-gsi.x86_64: W: no-documentation dcap-tunnel-krb.x86_64: W: no-documentation dcap-tunnel-ssl.x86_64: W: no-documentation dcap-tunnel-telnet.x86_64: W: no-documentation 9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 549809] Review Request: mingw32-libzip - mingw32 port of libzip
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549809 --- Comment #3 from Dave Ludlow d...@adsllc.com 2009-12-22 13:54:32 EDT --- Wow Peter, that's some speedy service! Fixed as requested. Spec: http://adsllc.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SPECS/mingw32-libzip.spec Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1886785 SRPM: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1886785name=mingw32-libzip-0.9-2.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 453422] Review Request: songbird - Mozilla based multimedia player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453422 --- Comment #89 from Sebastian Krämer m...@kraymer.de 2009-12-22 13:55:21 EDT --- 1.4 release? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453422] Review Request: songbird - Mozilla based multimedia player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453422 --- Comment #90 from David Halik auralva...@gmail.com 2009-12-22 13:59:48 EDT --- The source ball hasn't been released yet. When it is I'll start working on it, but it's going to take time some I'm sure since it's been so long since the last stable release. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 549809] Review Request: mingw32-libzip - mingw32 port of libzip
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549809 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-12-22 14:01:09 EDT --- Ok, this package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 549809] Review Request: mingw32-libzip - mingw32 port of libzip
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549809 Dave Ludlow d...@adsllc.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Dave Ludlow d...@adsllc.com 2009-12-22 14:08:00 EDT --- Thanks Peter! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mingw32-libzip Short Description: MinGW port of the C library for manipulating zip archives. Owners: adsllc Branches: F-11 F-12 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487097] Review Request: ReviewBoard - web based code review tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487097 --- Comment #26 from Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 14:20:51 EDT --- This specfile built successfully in Koji here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1886848 The SRPM and built noarch RPM is also available 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 487097] Review Request: ReviewBoard - web based code review tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487097 Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #379674|0 |1 is obsolete|| Flag||review?(dmalc...@redhat.com ||) --- Comment #25 from Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 14:19:40 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=379897) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=379897) Specfile for ReviewBoard 1.0.5.1 I am willing to co-maintain ReviewBoard (but I do not want to be its exclusive maintainer). I don't think there's really a need to go through the trouble of opening a second review request, but if that's The Way It's Done, sure. Issues: (i) Dgango 1.1.1-2 is in updates-testing, python-djblets I installed from this koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=147983 (I have submitted this package for updates-testing in F-12, so it should be present tomorrow) (ii) Source location fixed. For the record, the 1.1 branch is their unstable development branch, and I do not intend at the moment to import that. (iii) Desktop file comment added. (iv) The package contains all the files necessary to support git, mercurial, bazaar, clearcase, cvs, perforce and subversion at least. I am unable to test the suitability of all of them. I have a test environment working with git successfully using this 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 487097] Review Request: ReviewBoard - web based code review tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487097 Dave Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #28 from Dave Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 14:40:27 EDT --- Thanks; I think several of us want to comaintain this package, so I think that should be OK. A minor issue: you didn't update the %changelog in your latest specfile Other than that, this looks good to go. ACCEPTED. Setting fedora-review flag Please fix the %changelog before importing the specfile - thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 530204] Review Request: rubygem-hawler - Hawler, the Ruby HTTP crawler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530204 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-22 14:55:35 EDT --- rubygem-hawler-0.3-5.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 530204] Review Request: rubygem-hawler - Hawler, the Ruby HTTP crawler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530204 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|0.3-5.fc12 |0.3-5.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 530204] Review Request: rubygem-hawler - Hawler, the Ruby HTTP crawler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530204 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-22 14:54:12 EDT --- rubygem-hawler-0.3-5.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 530204] Review Request: rubygem-hawler - Hawler, the Ruby HTTP crawler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530204 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||0.3-5.fc12 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 542463] Review Request: zaz - A puzzle game where the player has to arrange balls in triplets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542463 Andrea Musuruane musur...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #6 from Andrea Musuruane musur...@gmail.com 2009-12-22 15:06:36 EDT --- Built and published. 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 487097] Review Request: ReviewBoard - web based code review tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487097 Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #29 from Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 15:13:37 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ReviewBoard Short Description: Web-based code review tool Owners: sgallagh dmalcolm 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 549863] New: Review Request: plexus-interpolation - Plexus Interpolation 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: plexus-interpolation - Plexus Interpolation API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549863 Summary: Review Request: plexus-interpolation - Plexus Interpolation API Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: akurt...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/plexus-interpolation.spec SRPM URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/plexus-interpolation-1.13-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Plexus interpolator is the outgrowth of multiple iterations of development focused on providing a more modular, flexible interpolation framework for the expression language style commonly seen in Maven, Plexus, and other related projects. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 548824] Review Request: security-menu - Menu Structure for the Security Spin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=548824 --- Comment #6 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-22 16:33:22 EDT --- Hi, I made a couple of changes to the source and checked them an at https://fedorahosted.org/security-spin/browser/security-menu Changes: * Rename X-Security-Lab to X-SecurityLab for better fdo compliance. Whitespces are usually just left out. * Add subcategories X-Anonymity, X-CodeAnalysis, X-Forensics, X-IntrusionDetection, X-Password-Tools, X-Reconnaissance and X-Wireless * Use TryExec to determine installed apps, see http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/latest/ar01s05.html * Menu tweaks * Enhance Makefile * Added AUTHORS * Added ChangeLog (for upstream changes, not packaging). Please review if my info is right! Please take a look the changes, especially what I have done for the applications included with filename /filename. I think this might be needed for more apps, please check. When we are done with everything, we tag it 1.0 in git make a tarball to package. The spec looks sane, but * you should use desktop-file-validate in %install, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files * Don't forget to include AUTHORS and ChangeLog * Change the Source0 url to point to fedorahosted when we have a tarball there Please don't upload the rpms into git, just put them on your fedorapeople.org account while they are under 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 521166] Review Request: OpenGTL - Graphics Transformation Languages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521166
--- Comment #17 from Matthew Woehlke mw_tr...@users.sourceforge.net
2009-12-22 16:39:12 EDT ---
Any idea when this will hit F12?
Note: I had to change the setup line from 'opengtl' to 'OpenGTL-%{version}' to
build the .spec from comment #16.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 549863] Review Request: plexus-interpolation - Plexus Interpolation 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=549863 Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||overh...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|overh...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 16:43:16 EDT --- Good: - builds - source good (no diffs in my checkout vs. yours packed in the tarball) - macros fine - no pre-build JARs - files fine - clean present Needs work: - line length too long for %description - should probably get some %doc files - license should be ASL 2.0 and ASL 1.1 and MIT - rpmlint output is not clean: $ rpmlint /home/overholt/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/plexus-interpolation-1.13-1.fc12.noarch.rpm plexus-interpolation.noarch: E: description-line-too-long Plexus interpolator is the outgrowth of multiple iterations of development focused on plexus-interpolation.noarch: E: description-line-too-long providing a more modular, flexible interpolation framework for the expression language plexus-interpolation.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.8-1 ['1.13-1.fc12', '1.13-1'] plexus-interpolation.noarch: W: no-documentation plexus-interpolation.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/plexus-interpolation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. $ rpmlint /home/overholt/rpmbuild/SRPMS/plexus-interpolation-1.13-1.fc12.src.rpm plexus-interpolation.src: E: description-line-too-long Plexus interpolator is the outgrowth of multiple iterations of development focused on plexus-interpolation.src: E: description-line-too-long providing a more modular, flexible interpolation framework for the expression language 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint /home/overholt/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/plexus-interpolation-javadoc-1.13-1.fc12.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 546868] Review Request: clac - Command Line Advanced Calculator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=546868 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-22 16:57:31 EDT --- clac-004-1.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update clac'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EL-4/FEDORA-EPEL-2009-1037 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 522204] New Package for Dogtag PKI: dogtag-pki-common-ui
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522204 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-22 16:57:35 EDT --- dogtag-pki-common-ui-1.3.0-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update dogtag-pki-common-ui'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EL-5/FEDORA-EPEL-2009-1039 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 546868] Review Request: clac - Command Line Advanced Calculator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=546868 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-22 16:58:03 EDT --- clac-004-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update clac'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EL-5/FEDORA-EPEL-2009-1049 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 545895] Review Request: poky-scripts - Poky platform builder utility scripts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=545895 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-22 16:57:46 EDT --- poky-scripts-6-6.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update poky-scripts'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EL-5/FEDORA-EPEL-2009-1043 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 521989] New Package for Dogtag PKI:pki-util
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521989 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-22 16:57:51 EDT --- pki-util-1.3.0-4.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update pki-util'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EL-5/FEDORA-EPEL-2009-1044 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453422] Review Request: songbird - Mozilla based multimedia player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453422 --- Comment #91 from Scott Williams vwfoxg...@gmail.com 2009-12-22 16:56:44 EDT --- Looks like 1.4 source is available: http://publicsvn.songbirdnest.com/client/branches/Songbird1.4/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 549863] Review Request: plexus-interpolation - Plexus Interpolation 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=549863 --- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 16:58:40 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) Good: - builds - source good (no diffs in my checkout vs. yours packed in the tarball) - macros fine - no pre-build JARs - files fine - clean present Needs work: - line length too long for %description Fixed. - should probably get some %doc files There is nothing suitable. - license should be ASL 2.0 and ASL 1.1 and MIT Fixed. - rpmlint output is not clean: Output now is but both are fase positives.: plexus-interpolation.noarch: W: no-documentation plexus-interpolation.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/plexus-interpolation New sources: Spec URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/plexus-interpolation.spec SRPM URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/plexus-interpolation-1.13-2.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 522208] New Package for Dogtag PKI: dogtag-pki-ca-ui
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522208 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-22 16:57:56 EDT --- dogtag-pki-ca-ui-1.3.0-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update dogtag-pki-ca-ui'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EL-5/FEDORA-EPEL-2009-1047 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 549884] New: Review Request: plexus-io - Plexus IO Components
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: plexus-io - Plexus IO Components https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549884 Summary: Review Request: plexus-io - Plexus IO Components Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: akurt...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/plexus-io.spec SRPM URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/plexus-io-1.0-0.1.a5.1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Plexus IO is a set of plexus components, which are designed for use in I/O operations. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 548607] Review Request: pvs-sbcl - SRI's Prototype Verification System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=548607
--- Comment #10 from David A. Wheeler dwhee...@dwheeler.com 2009-12-22
17:16:21 EDT ---
Sadly, the workaround doesn't seem to work around. It still hangs, same place,
when trying to build PVS. I fired up another build for
pvs-sbcl-4.2-2.20091008svn.fc12.src.rpm (per comment 9 ), but it hangs the
same spot. I don't know why this happens, but I've put some details below in
the hope that they help.
The rpmbuild hangs after printing this:
; caught STYLE-WARNING:
; undefined function: SB-RUNTIME::PRINT-STRUCT
; (SB-RUNTIME::PRINT-STRUCT SB-RUNTIME::SELF STREAM SB-RUNTIME::TOKEN :KIND
; :SUBKIND :VALUE :STR-VALUE)
;
; caught WARNING:
; undefined variable: SB-RUNTIME:TOKEN
;
; compilation unit finished
; Undefined functions:
; SB-RUNTIME:AW-TERM ERGO-DISKSAVE SB-RUNTIME::PRINT-STRUCT
; Undefined variables:
; SB-RUNTIME:*FORMATTING-OFF* PVS::*UNTYPECHECK-HOOK* SB-RUNTIME::BP
SB-RUNTIME::CHARNUMBER SB-RUNTIME::LINENUMBER SB-RUNTIME::LINETEXT
SB-RUNTIME:TOKEN
; caught 8 WARNING conditions
; caught 8 STYLE-WARNING conditions
[undoing binding stack and other enclosing state... done]
[saving current Lisp image into bin/ix86-Linux/runtime/pvs-sbclisp:
writing 3432 bytes from the read-only space at 0x0100
writing 2256 bytes from the static space at 0x0110
writing 92459008 bytes from the dynamic space at 0x0900
done]
rm /home/dwheeler/rpmbuild/BUILD/pvs-4.2/BDD/ix86-Linux/bdd-sbcl.*
rm: cannot remove
`/home/dwheeler/rpmbuild/BUILD/pvs-4.2/BDD/ix86-Linux/bdd-sbcl.*': No such file
or directory
make: [bin/ix86-Linux/runtime/pvs-sbclisp] Error 1 (ignored)
cp /home/dwheeler/rpmbuild/BUILD/pvs-4.2/sbcl bin/ix86-Linux/runtime/
cp /home/dwheeler/rpmbuild/BUILD/pvs-4.2/BDD/ix86-Linux/mu.so
bin/ix86-Linux/runtime/
cp /home/dwheeler/rpmbuild/BUILD/pvs-4.2/BDD/bdd-sbcl.lisp
/home/dwheeler/rpmbuild/BUILD/pvs-4.2/BDD/mu-sbcl.lisp bin/ix86-Linux/runtime/
cp /home/dwheeler/rpmbuild/BUILD/pvs-4.2/src/WS1S/ix86-Linux/ws1s.so
bin/ix86-Linux/runtime/
cp /home/dwheeler/rpmbuild/BUILD/pvs-4.2/src/WS1S/lisp/dfa-foreign-sbcl.lisp
bin/ix86-Linux/runtime/
cp /home/dwheeler/rpmbuild/BUILD/pvs-4.2/src/utils/ix86-Linux/b64
bin/ix86-Linux
./pvs -batch -l emacs/emacs-src/pvs-set-prelude-info.el \
-f set-prelude-files-and-regions
Loading /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/site-start.d/focus-init.el (source)...
Loading /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/site-start.d/php-mode-init.el (source)...
Loading /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/site-start.d/po-mode-init.el (source)...
Loading /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/site-start.d/rpm-spec-mode-init.el
(source)...
Loading /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/site-start.d/rpmdev-init.el (source)...
{and there it sits.}
top shows that emacs is outrageously busy. When I did the rpmbuild this time
it's process 30005 that is busy busy busy; here are extracts from ps -ef -H
--width 9:
dwheeler 29178 29115 0 15:33 pts/000:00:00 rpmbuild -ba
pvs-sbcl.spec
dwheeler 29279 29178 0 15:33 pts/000:00:00 /bin/sh -e
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ftYHYX
dwheeler 29829 29279 0 15:33 pts/000:00:00 make
SBCLISP_HOME=/home/dwheeler/rpmbuild/BUILD/pvs-4.2
PVSPATH=/home/dwheeler/rpmbuild/BUILD/pvs-4.2/
dwheeler 2 29829 0 16:25 pts/000:00:00 /bin/sh ./pvs
-batch -l emacs/emacs-src/pvs-set-prelude-info.el -f
set-prelude-files-and-regions
dwheeler 30005 2 98 16:25 pts/000:29:32 emacs -batch
-load /home/dwheeler/rpmbuild/BUILD/pvs-4.2/emacs/go-pvs.el -l
emacs/emacs-src/pvs-set-prelude-info.el -f set-prelude-files-and-regions
dwheeler 30006 30005 0 16:25 ?00:00:00
/home/dwheeler/rpmbuild/BUILD/pvs-4.2/bin/ix86-Linux/devel/pvs-sbclisp
--noinform --no-userinit
The incessantly-busy 'emacs' process 30005 has fired off a pvs-sbclisp
process.
I used gdb to try to get some backtrace information with 'gdb /usr/bin/emacs
30005'; gdb then told me to load the debug libraries by doing:
yum --enablerepo='*-debuginfo' install
/usr/lib/debug/.build-id/80/ba91d6689ccf229be06e5e2d828cd9e95dc65b.debug
debuginfo-install alsa-lib-1.0.20-1.fc11.i586 atk-1.25.2-2.fc11.i586
bzip2-libs-1.0.5-5.fc11.i586 cairo-1.8.8-1.fc11.i586
dbus-libs-1.2.12-2.fc11.i586 e2fsprogs-libs-1.41.4-12.fc11.i586
expat-2.0.1-6.i586 fontconfig-2.7.1-1.fc11.i586 freetype-2.3.9-5.fc11.i586
giflib-4.1.6-2.fc11.i586 glib2-2.20.4-1.fc11.i586 glibc-2.10.1-4.i686
gtk2-2.16.5-1.fc11.i586 libICE-1.0.4-7.fc11.i586 libSM-1.1.0-4.fc11.i586
libX11-1.2.2-1.fc11.i586 libXau-1.0.4-5.fc11.i586
libXcomposite-0.4.0-7.fc11.i586 libXcursor-1.1.9-4.fc11.i586
libXdamage-1.1.1-6.fc11.i586 libXext-1.0.99.1-2.fc11.i586
libXfixes-4.0.3-5.fc11.i586 libXft-2.1.13-2.fc11.i586 libXi-1.2.1-1.fc11.i586
libXinerama-1.0.3-4.fc11.i586 libXpm-3.5.7-5.fc11.i586
[Bug 453422] Review Request: songbird - Mozilla based multimedia player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453422 --- Comment #92 from Scott Williams vwfoxg...@gmail.com 2009-12-22 17:18:27 EDT --- For what it's worth, songbird 1.4 appears to work in f12 by extracting the tarball'd binary and running it, if that's any hope for your packaging of it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 549709] Review Request: libgnome-keyring - Framework for managing passwords and other secrets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549709 --- Comment #5 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 17:31:52 EDT --- Package builds fine in mock, and rpmlint is silent: rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/libgnome-keyring-*.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 548607] Review Request: pvs-sbcl - SRI's Prototype Verification System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=548607 --- Comment #11 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com 2009-12-22 17:42:57 EDT --- That's annoying. The workaround fixed the hang with 64-bit XEmacs, and 64-bit Emacs never seemed to have a problem. So what's up with 32-bit Emacs? I don't know, off the top of my head. Can you try setting PVSEMACS=xemacs and see if you get the same hang? If so, it really is a 32-bit versus 64-bit issue somehow, although I still fail to see how that could have anything to do with it. If not, we'll just set PVSEMACS in the spec file to make sure we don't get a hung build for now, and I'll talk to the Emacs developers to see if they have any ideas. Incidentally, there's another bug somewhere. I was just working on a proof, tried to prove a TCC, and Lisp threw an error, claiming that *EXPRS-GENERATING-ACTUAL-TCCS* is unbound. That isn't possible, since it is defvar'd in globals.lisp and given an initial value of nil. I did a setq to nil, and was able to continue with the proof, but that shouldn't have happened... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 549863] Review Request: plexus-interpolation - Plexus Interpolation 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=549863 Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 17:48:43 EDT --- Okay, thanks for the fixes. 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 549709] Review Request: libgnome-keyring - Framework for managing passwords and other secrets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549709 Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mcla...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 549709] Review Request: libgnome-keyring - Framework for managing passwords and other secrets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549709 --- Comment #6 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2009-12-22 18:06:31 EDT --- package name: ok spec name: ok packaging guidelines: ok license: ok license field: ok license file: ok spec language: ok spec readable: yes upstream source: ok buildable: yes ExcludeArch: none, ok BuildRequires: ok locale handling: none, ok ldconfig: ok system libraries: none, ok relocatable: no, ok directory ownership: ok duplicate files: ok file permissions: ok %clean: ok macro use: ok permissable content: ok large docs: none, ok %doc content: ok header files: ok static libs: none, ok pc files: ok shared libs: ok devel deps: ok libtool archives: none, ok gui apps: no, ok file ownership: ok, but we should figure out how to handle the conflict with the old gnome-keyring package %install: ok utf8 filenames: ok Summary: all looks good, we just need to figure out the conflict with the old gnome-keyring package. Probably add something like Conflicts: gnome-keyring 2.29.4 Conflicts: gnome-keyring-devel 2.29.4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 549915] New: Review Request: FreeMat - An interpreted, matrix-oriented development environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: FreeMat - An interpreted, matrix-oriented development environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549915 Summary: Review Request: FreeMat - An interpreted, matrix-oriented development environment Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: henrique...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://lonelyspooky.com/uploads/rpm/freemat/4.0-1/freemat.spec SRPM URL: http://lonelyspooky.com/uploads/rpm/freemat/4.0-1/FreeMat-4.0-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Freemat is an interpreted, matrix-oriented development environment for engineering and scientific applications, similar to the commercial package MATLAB. Freemat provides visualization, image manipulation, and plotting as well as parallel programming. [lon...@localhost i686]$ rpmlint FreeMat-4.0-1.fc12.i686.rpm FreeMat-doc-4.0-1.fc12.i686.rpm FreeMat-debuginfo-4.0-1.fc12.i686.rpm FreeMat.i686: E: script-without-shebang /usr/bin/blas.ini FreeMat.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/FreeMat-4.0/toolbox/test/addArrays.c FreeMat-doc.i686: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. I still have some issues to work, but I'm really confused here. This FreeMat-debuginfo package was automatically generated by rpmbuild, but my package has some strange requirements that i haven't defined as a Requires in my spec: [lon...@localhost i686]$ su -c 'rpm -ivh FreeMat-4.0-1.fc12.i686.rpm' Senha: erro: Dependências não satisfeitas: libCore.so é requerido por FreeMat-4.0-1.fc12.i686 libFN.so é requerido por FreeMat-4.0-1.fc12.i686 libFreeMatlib.so é requerido por FreeMat-4.0-1.fc12.i686 libGraphics.so é requerido por FreeMat-4.0-1.fc12.i686 libMatC.so é requerido por FreeMat-4.0-1.fc12.i686 libMex.so é requerido por FreeMat-4.0-1.fc12.i686 libXP.so é requerido por FreeMat-4.0-1.fc12.i686 libarpack_c.so é requerido por FreeMat-4.0-1.fc12.i686 libblasref.so é requerido por FreeMat-4.0-1.fc12.i686 libdynblas.so é requerido por FreeMat-4.0-1.fc12.i686 liblapack_c.so é requerido por FreeMat-4.0-1.fc12.i686 What is happening? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 549915] Review Request: FreeMat - An interpreted, matrix-oriented development environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549915
Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-12-22 18:29:13
EDT ---
Ugh. blas.ini in %{_bindir}??
- You're not owning %{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version}/, add
%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version}/
to the main %files.
- Are the files in
%{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version}/help
used by the main program? In that case you don't need to make a separate %doc
package. On the other hand if the files are not used by the program itself, use
%{_docdir} instead of %{_datadir}.
- I think you are missing some buildrequires, since judging from the project
homepage FreeMat links against BLAS. Actually, you should link against ATLAS,
which is faster than reference BLAS LAPACK.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 549915] Review Request: FreeMat - An interpreted, matrix-oriented development environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549915
--- Comment #2 from Henrique LonelySpooky Junior henrique...@gmail.com
2009-12-22 18:49:26 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Ugh. blas.ini in %{_bindir}??
Yes... it is in the same place that upstream places it (with this strange 644
permission, already fixed). Is it the wrong place?
- You're not owning %{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version}/, add
%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version}/
to the main %files.
Thank you, I'm doing it right now.
- Are the files in
%{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version}/help
used by the main program? In that case you don't need to make a separate %doc
package. On the other hand if the files are not used by the program itself,
use
%{_docdir} instead of %{_datadir}.
You are right, those help files are more like a collection of manuals and it is
used by the main software. I'll merge it.
- I think you are missing some buildrequires, since judging from the project
homepage FreeMat links against BLAS. Actually, you should link against ATLAS,
which is faster than reference BLAS LAPACK.
I've just look at an how to build in Linux file, but with a little lack of
details. I'm going to do some more reading about linking it in ATLAS.
I'm waiting for some answers from upstream too.
Thank you for your help Jussi.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487097] Review Request: ReviewBoard - web based code review tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487097 --- Comment #30 from Dan Young dyo...@mesd.k12.or.us 2009-12-22 18:53:33 EDT --- (In reply to comment #24) Dan: are you interested in (co)maintaining it? Sure, I can co-maintain. I'll request the ACL once ReviewBoard lands in CVS/pkgdb. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487097] Review Request: ReviewBoard - web based code review tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487097 --- Comment #31 from Dan Young dyo...@mesd.k12.or.us 2009-12-22 19:01:59 EDT --- (In reply to comment #25) (i) Dgango 1.1.1-2 is in updates-testing, python-djblets I installed from this koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=147983 (I have submitted this package for updates-testing in F-12, so it should be present tomorrow) I submitted python-djblets in bodhi shortly after building: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-djblets-0.5.6-0.fc12 I assume I just did that too late in the day yesterday for RelEng to sign it for updates-testing today. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 548824] Review Request: security-menu - Menu Structure for the Security Spin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=548824 --- Comment #7 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-22 19:03:27 EDT --- Some more comments on the spec: drop %define ..., it is not needed. If you need such things, use %global instead, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/global_preferred_over_define Drop Requires(pre) and add Requires: redhat-menus for directory ownership. As long as we have no icons, remove the icon-cache scriptlets. When we have, add the latest version of the scripts again. Yours are slightly outdated compared to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
