[Bug 606714] Review Request: eekboard - A Virtual Keyboard 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=606714 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-07-02 02:02:45 EDT --- eekboard-0.0.4-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/eekboard-0.0.4-1.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 589866] Review Request: darktable - Utility to organize and develop raw images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589866 Mikko Huhtala mhuht...@abo.fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mhuht...@abo.fi --- Comment #9 from Mikko Huhtala mhuht...@abo.fi 2010-07-02 02:21:58 EDT --- I tried building a git snapshot taken on 2010-07-01 with the given spec file on 32-bit Fedora 13. At least the following seem to be missing from BuildRequires: libtool OpenEXR-devel libgphoto2-devel libcurl-devel dbus-glib-devel gcc-c++ Configure now says'--disable-rpath' is a unrecognized option, so I took it out. Configure completes without errors, but I still had a problem with libdarktable.so. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 610211] Review Request: unique3 - Single instance support for GTK3 applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610211 Adel Gadllah adel.gadl...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||adel.gadl...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|adel.gadl...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Adel Gadllah adel.gadl...@gmail.com 2010-07-02 02:45:40 EDT --- Package Review: [+] source files match upstream: 32ab9849994da70f461fc78c59a2b930d294f8c7 [+] package meets naming and versioning guidelines. [+] specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. [+] dist tag is present. [+] license field matches the actual license. [+] license is open source-compatible: LGPLv2+ [+] latest version is being packaged. [+] BuildRequires are proper. [+] compiler flags are appropriate. [+] package builds in koji. [+] package installs properly. [+] debuginfo package looks complete. [1] rpmlint is silent. [+] owns the directories it creates. [+] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. [+] no duplicates in %files. [+] file permissions are appropriate. [+] scriptlets are sane. [+] code, not content. [+] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. [+] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. [+] no libtool .la droppings. == [1]: Just noise: --- unique3-2.90.1-1.fc14.src/unique3.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean unique3-2.90.1-1.fc14.src/unique3.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag unique3-2.90.1-1.fc14.src/unique3.spec: W: no-%clean-section --- = 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 606714] Review Request: eekboard - A Virtual Keyboard 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=606714 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #20 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-07-02 02:53:53 EDT --- Thanks, now 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 595638] Review Request: qwit - Qt4 cross-platform client for Twitter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=595638 Chen Lei supercyp...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #12 from Chen Lei supercyp...@gmail.com 2010-07-02 02:58:22 EDT --- Moved icons to /usr/share/icons/hicolor/*/*/ as comment#5, close this report 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 540617] Review Request: django-lint - lint for (python) django web-framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=540617 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #43 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2010-07-02 03:15:31 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: django-lint New Branches: EL-6 Owners: mrunge I've been asked to include it in EL-6. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 602598] Review Request: perl-Proc-WaitStat - Interpret and act on wait() status values
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=602598 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2010-07-02 03:18:09 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-Proc-WaitStat New Branches: EL-6 Owners: mrunge I've been asked to include it into EL-6. I would do... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 605610] Review Request: rubygem-chronic - natural language date/time parser written in pure Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=605610 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #9 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-07-02 03:44:23 EDT --- Closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 601408] Review Request: techtalk-pse - Presentation software designed for technical people
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=601408 --- Comment #10 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2010-07-02 04:53:30 EDT --- I just released 1.0.1. *However* this contains no change except for the patch in comment 9 so it's not necessary to upgrade. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609688] Review Request: secstate - Security requirements reporting and configuration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609688 Jan F. Chadima jchad...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jchad...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jchad...@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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 610211] Review Request: unique3 - Single instance support for GTK3 applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610211 Chen Lei supercyp...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||supercyp...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Chen Lei supercyp...@gmail.com 2010-07-02 05:27:10 EDT --- Some trivial suggestion: 1.It loooks like BuildRequires: gnome-doc-utils = 0.3.2 and Requires: pkgconfig is not needed. 2. I seems the minimum version for gtk3 is 2.90.0, I think BuildRequires: gtk3-devel = 2.90.0 can be changed to gtk3-devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609688] Review Request: secstate - Security requirements reporting and configuration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609688
--- Comment #2 from Jan F. Chadima jchad...@redhat.com 2010-07-02 05:25:58
EDT ---
rpmlint: secstate.spec says:
secstate.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: secstate-%{_version}-%{_release}.tar.gz
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609688] Review Request: secstate - Security requirements reporting and configuration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609688 --- Comment #3 from Jan F. Chadima jchad...@redhat.com 2010-07-02 05:44:29 EDT --- the package cannot be built because of invalid Source0 url, The actual license is GPLv21+ mentioned GPLv2+ The license file is not in the %doc I didn't find the tarball of the sources in the upstream url. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 569671] Review Request: elliptics - Distributed hash table storage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569671 --- Comment #15 from Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de 2010-07-02 05:49:28 EDT --- I'm currently quite bussy at the moment. When I get a bit of time, I will take the points above to resolve the current Conflict with libdnet. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 539471] Review Request: libserializer - JFreeReport General Serialization Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539471
David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com 2010-07-02 06:34:46 EDT
---
rpmlint results:
SPECS/libserializer.spec:31: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation
SPECS/libserializer.spec:91: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package)
%attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
review status:
# MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
PASS
# MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
PASS
# MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. .
PASS
# MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
PASS
# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
PASS
# MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
PASS
# MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
PASS
# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
PASS
# MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
PASS
# MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
PASS
# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
PASS
# MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
PASS
# MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
PASS
# MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
PASS
# MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
PASS
# MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
PASS
# MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
PASS
# MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
PASS
# MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
PASS
# MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
PASS
# MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
PASS
# MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
PASS
# MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition
of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
PASS
# MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
PASS
# MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
PASS
# MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
PASS
# MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
PASS
# MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
PASS
# MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed
[Bug 539471] Review Request: libserializer - JFreeReport General Serialization Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539471 Caolan McNamara caol...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Caolan McNamara caol...@redhat.com 2010-07-02 06:42:41 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: libserializer Short Description: JFreeReport General Serialization Framework Owners: caolanm Branches: devel 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 582163] Review Request: perl-Test-Smoke - Perl core test smoke suite
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=582163 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 175291] Review Request: perl-PatchReader - utilities to read and manipulate patches and CVS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=175291 Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com 2010-07-02 07:43:05 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-PatchReader New Branches: EL-5 EL-6 Owners: pfrields perl-sig InitialCC: Please create EPEL branches for this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609688] Review Request: secstate - Security requirements reporting and configuration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609688 Jan F. Chadima jchad...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561128] Package review: aide
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561128 Miloslav Trmač m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||UPSTREAM -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 610794] New: Review Request: meego-panel-zones - Meego zones panel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: meego-panel-zones - Meego zones panel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610794 Summary: Review Request: meego-panel-zones - Meego zones panel Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: pbrobin...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Blocks: 538447 Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora SPEC: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/meego-panel-zones.spec SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/meego-panel-zones-0.1.18-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: Zones panel for MeeGo for switching between running applications. koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2289977 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 515247] Review Request: tint2 - a lightweight X11 desktop panel and task manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515247 --- Comment #15 from Chess Griffin ch...@chessgriffin.com 2010-07-02 09:45:23 EDT --- German, I do not have time at the moment to update the spec, so please feel free to submit your package. This review can be closed. 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561128] Package review: aide
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561128 Mark Chappell trem...@tremble.org.uk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||trem...@tremble.org.uk --- Comment #4 from Mark Chappell trem...@tremble.org.uk 2010-07-02 09:52:36 EDT --- I - tremble - would be interested in seeing a EL-5 and EL-6 branches and would be happy to (co)maintain if you'd like -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 610211] Review Request: unique3 - Single instance support for GTK3 applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610211 Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 610842] New: Review Request: meego-panel-devices - Meego devices panel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: meego-panel-devices - Meego devices panel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610842 Summary: Review Request: meego-panel-devices - Meego devices panel Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: pbrobin...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Depends on: 610839 Blocks: 538447 Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora SPEC: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/meego-panel-devices.spec SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/meego-panel-devices-0.1.33-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Panel for MeeGo for managing sound and disk devices. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 603514] Review Request: libmodman - A simple library for managing C++ modules (plug-ins)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=603514 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kwiz...@gmail.com --- Comment #24 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com 2010-07-02 11:22:04 EDT --- libmodman need to be imported in devel in order to have libproxy updated. (and rebuilt for the webkitgtk ABI bump) BTW, I see the conflicts with libproxy 0.4.4 as totally pointless, since we don't provides multiple version of the same package in 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226454] Merge Review: system-config-cluster
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226454 Garrett Holmstrom gho...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||gho...@fedoraproject.org Resolution||WONTFIX --- Comment #1 from Garrett Holmstrom gho...@fedoraproject.org 2010-07-02 11:20:23 EDT --- Since this package as well as its upstream are dead we can probably lay this bug to rest to get it off the merge review list. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 577951] Review Request: mingw32-wine-gecko - MinGW Gecko library required for Wine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=577951 --- Comment #7 from Andreas Bierfert andreas.bierf...@lowlatency.de 2010-07-02 11:39:57 EDT --- https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2290258 Just did another build on F-13 seems to work again (probably was a bug in the mingw stack). It would be nice if someone could review the package. It works quite well from me an we are very very close to the 1.2 release of wine and this would be a cool thing to have... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 610857] New: Review Request: rubygem-curb - Ruby libcurl bindings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rubygem-curb - Ruby libcurl bindings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610857 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-curb - Ruby libcurl bindings Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: shreya...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://shreyankg.fedorapeople.org/packaging/curb/rubygem-curb.spec SRPM URL: http://shreyankg.fedorapeople.org/packaging/curb/rubygem-curb-0.7.7.1-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: Curb provides Ruby-language bindings for the libcurl(3), a fully-featured client-side URL transfer library. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 581220] Review Request: qtsingleapplication - Qt library to start applications only once per user
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=581220
Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|rdie...@math.unl.edu|ka...@smartlink.ee
--- Comment #8 from Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee 2010-07-02 12:08:49 EDT
---
Rex asked me to wrap up the review for him.
(In reply to comment #6)
naming: good, though I'm curious why upstream tacks on _1 in the tarball name.
?
I think I have an answer to that question. I pulled up qtsingleapplication's
changelog from
https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=qtsingleapplicationproject=home%3Akoprok
and there was this changeset:
Name: qtsingleapplication
-Version: 2.6
+Version: 2.6_1
Release: 1
Url:
http://qt.nokia.com/products/appdev/add-on-products/catalog/4/Utilities/qtsingleapplication/
Group: Development/Libraries/C and C++
@@ -97,5 +97,7 @@
%{_datadir}/qt4/mkspecs/features/%{name}.prf
%changelog
+* Wed Apr 14 2010 Todor Prokopov kop...@nand.bg
+- Update to 2.6_1.
* Thu Dec 3 2009 Todor Prokopov kop...@nand.bg
- Initial package.
So it appears that 2.6_1 tarball is newer than 2.6.
I wonder if upstream is going to be consistent with using _ in versions; we
should be careful to avoid introducing Epoch in case they want to release, say,
2.6.1 next.
rpmdev-vercmp says that 2.6_1 is newer than 2.6.1.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 589866] Review Request: darktable - Utility to organize and develop raw images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589866 --- Comment #10 from Edouard Bourguignon ma...@linuxed.net 2010-07-02 12:20:48 EDT --- I also have to add this BuildRequires, but not sure about gcc-c++ (on 2010-06-25 git sources). I will check that and upload my specs and rpms soon. I try to follow the guidelines about versioning, is darktable-0.5-dategit a good way to version 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609788] Review Request: mdds - A collection of multi-dimensional data structures and indexing algorithms
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609788 David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #428198|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #8 from David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com 2010-07-02 12:43:33 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=429111) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=429111) srpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 610794] Review Request: meego-panel-zones - Meego zones panel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610794 --- Comment #1 from Chen Lei supercyp...@gmail.com 2010-07-02 12:46:37 EDT --- How can you determine git_version e5fadfe is the version 0.1.18? From http://meego.gitorious.org/meego-netbook-ux/meego-panel-zones The version for Master/meego 1.1 is 0.2.0, the version for meego 1.0 is 0.1.19(the package name is moblin-panel-zones). It'll be much easier to use tarball in the upstream src.rpm, them write a comment before the source field. http://repo.meego.com/MeeGo/builds/1.0/latest/netbook/repos/source/moblin-panel-zones-0.1.19-3.3.src.rpm http://repo.meego.com/MeeGo/builds/1.0.80/1.0.80.8.20100629.1/netbook/repos/source/meego-panel-zones-0.2.1-2.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 581220] Review Request: qtsingleapplication - Qt library to start applications only once per user
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=581220 --- Comment #10 from Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee 2010-07-02 12:47:58 EDT --- It might actually make sense to just remove Core headers too. We can always fix up Core library build later when some programs that actually need this show up in Fedora. Right now I can't think of any package which can take advantage of QtSingleCoreApplication. However if you choose to fix Core build, I think it should go in a separate subpackage: qtsingleapplication - depends on QtQui qtsinglecoreapplication - depends only on QtCore -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609788] Review Request: mdds - A collection of multi-dimensional data structures and indexing algorithms
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609788 David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #428197|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #7 from David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com 2010-07-02 12:42:17 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=429109) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=429109) spec forgot to remove runtime dep on main pkg from -devel, grr -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 581220] Review Request: qtsingleapplication - Qt library to start applications only once per user
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=581220 --- Comment #9 from Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee 2010-07-02 12:29:35 EDT --- /usr/include/QtSolutions should be owned by qtsingleapplication-devel, otherwise removing the package will leave dangling empty directory behind. There are separate qtsingleapplication.h and qtsinglecoreapplication.h headers in the include dir and in the build dir there are separate qtsingleapplication.o and qtsinglecoreapplication.o object files; however there is only qtsingleapplication DSO installed and the Core variant appears to be missing. Looks like upstream has done the split to avoid pulling in QtGui libraries with the Core version. In QtLockedFile you carefully avoided (needlessly) linking with QtGui; but now the Core version which is supposed to not need QtGui isn't included in the final rpm. rpmlint output: qtsingleapplication.src:57: W: configure-without-libdir-spec qtsingleapplication.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libQtSolutions_SingleApplication-2.6.so.1.0.0 /lib/libm.so.6 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Both warnings can be ignored. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 610794] Review Request: meego-panel-zones - Meego zones panel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610794 --- Comment #2 from Chen Lei supercyp...@gmail.com 2010-07-02 13:02:19 EDT --- I suggest you to use tarball from offical meego repo. Also, packaging meego 1.1 will be more useful, it looks like meego 1.0 is an experimental release(few qt stuff, still using moblin name). Meego 1.1 is more like Fedora 14, both releases will use kernel 2.6.35. We can modify src.rpm from http://repo.meego.com/MeeGo/builds/1.0.80, a package list for meego 1.1 is available. http://repo.meego.com/MeeGo/builds/1.0.80/1.0.80.8.20100629.1/netbook/images/meego-netbook-ia32/meego-netbook-ia32-1.0.80.8.20100629.1.packages We can easily use diff to see which package are updated between weekly images regularly. wget http://repo.meego.com/MeeGo/builds/1.0.80/1.0.80.8.20100622.1/netbook/images/meego-netbook-ia32/meego-netbook-ia32-1.0.80.8.20100622.1.packages wget http://repo.meego.com/MeeGo/builds/1.0.80/1.0.80.8.20100629.1/netbook/images/meego-netbook-ia32/meego-netbook-ia32-1.0.80.8.20100629.1.packages diff -u meego-netbook-ia32-1.0.80.8.20100622.1.packages meego-netbook-ia32-1.0.80.8.20100629.1.packages -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609638] Review Request: kpassgen - Random password creater
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609638 Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ka...@smartlink.ee --- Comment #1 from Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee 2010-07-02 13:03:42 EDT --- It appears that you have modified the spec file after initial submission. If you do that, please bump the Release, update %changelog and post new links to spec and srpm in this ticket. Group: Utilities Use one of groups from /usr/share/doc/rpm-*/GROUPS file instead; Utilities isn't a standard rpm group. License: GNU Refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing page to figure out what to put in the License tag. %description A random password creator Perhaps you can be a bit more verbose? There's a nice description at http://kde-apps.org/content/show.php/KPassGen?content=108673 , use that. You need to use either desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate as per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage %doc is currently empty. KPassgen has COPYING file in the tarball and you need to include that in the rpm too: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 175291] Review Request: perl-PatchReader - utilities to read and manipulate patches and CVS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=175291 --- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2010-07-02 13:12:30 EDT --- CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 610211] Review Request: unique3 - Single instance support for GTK3 applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610211 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? | --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2010-07-02 13:14:01 EDT --- The fedora-cvs flag is set but there's no CVS request that I can find. Resetting the flag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 539471] Review Request: libserializer - JFreeReport General Serialization Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539471 --- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2010-07-02 13:12:47 EDT --- CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 540617] Review Request: django-lint - lint for (python) django web-framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=540617 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #44 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2010-07-02 13:15:45 EDT --- There's already an EL-6 branch for this package, verified by pkgdb and a CVS checkout. If there's something I'm missing, please set the fedora-cvs flag back to '?' and let me know what it is. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 602598] Review Request: perl-Proc-WaitStat - Interpret and act on wait() status values
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=602598 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2010-07-02 13:16:39 EDT --- There's already an EL-6 branch for this package, verified by pkgdb and a CVS checkout. If I've missed something, please let me know what it is. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 540617] Review Request: django-lint - lint for (python) django web-framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=540617 --- Comment #45 from Till Maas opensou...@till.name 2010-07-02 13:25:11 EDT --- Matthias: You need to run cvs up -dP in the django-lint dir to get the EL-6 dir afaik. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 610794] Review Request: meego-panel-zones - Meego zones panel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610794 Chen Lei supercyp...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||supercyp...@gmail.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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 232394] Review Request: pdfedit - A complete pdf document editing solution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=232394 --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2010-07-02 13:59:00 EDT --- CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 607584] Review Request: wordgroupz - A vocabulary building 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=607584
Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
--- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-07-02
14:00:06 EDT ---
Some notes:
* BuildRoot
- On Fedora BuildRoot tag is no longer used and can be removed
(even if rpmlint may complain if you remove it)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
- If you want to import this package also into EPEL, BuildRoot tag
is still needed.
* License tag
- As far as I checked the whole codes, the license tag should be
GPLv2+.
* BuildRequires for python
- Please use BuildRequires: python2 instead of BR: python, c.f.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#BuildRequires
* BuildRequires v.s. Requires
- Please check if the dependencies you wrote in the spec file is
for BuildRequires or for Requires.
- BuildRequires are the packages required when rebuilding srpm,
while Requires are the packages required when installing the rebuilt
binary rpm (i.e. when using the software).
For example, actually your srpm builds only with BR: python2:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2289162
However without pygtk2 this package won't work (i.e. wordgroupz won't
run), this means pygtk2 should be in Requires, not in BuildRequires.
! On F-12+, sqlite3 module is already in python package, so Requires:
python-sqlite
is redundant. Also gtk2 package is always required by pygtk2, so Requires:
gtk2
is unneeded.
* CFLAGS
- This is noarch package, so 'env CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS
is not needed.
* Installing desktop files
- When a package contains desktop file, desktop-file-{install,validate}
must
be used and BR: desktop-file-utils must be included:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage
* Desktop file
- Application category in desktop file is deprecated and should
be removed.
* Directory ownership issue
- Please make it sure that all directories which are newly created when
installing
this package are correctly owned by this package:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories#Common_Mistakes
- The directory %{_datadir}/wordgroupz/ itself is not owned by any
packages.
* Permission
- rpmlint complains:
--
wordgroupz.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/wordgroupz/wordgroupz.glade
wordgroupz.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/applications/wordgroupz.desktop
--
This is because these files have executable permissin (0755) but it must
not.
Also .png file has 0755 permission, which should be 0644. Please fix the
permission.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 610211] Review Request: unique3 - Single instance support for GTK3 applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610211 --- Comment #7 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2010-07-02 14:32:39 EDT --- I've asked Richard if he would mind owning it, since he is the maintainer of unique, and this is just a gtk3 port of that. But feel free to add me as owner as well, if it makes your job easier, I don't mind owning yet another 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 539471] Review Request: libserializer - JFreeReport General Serialization Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539471 Caolan McNamara caol...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 610934] New: Review Request: go - The Google Go Programming Language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: go - The Google Go Programming Language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610934 Summary: Review Request: go - The Google Go Programming Language Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: bran...@pwnage.ca QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.pwnage.ca/dist/SPEC/go.spec SRPM URL: http://www.pwnage.ca/dist/SRPMS/go-0-0.20100621hg.fc13.src.rpm Description: The Google Go Programming Language -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608066] LDC a compiler for the D programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608066 Casey Dahlin cdah...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Casey Dahlin cdah...@redhat.com 2010-07-02 15:21:24 EDT --- I'd update your comment about how to build the tarball to explain /why/ that exercise must be gone through and what the upstream situation is. Beyond that I'd say this is set. Do you need a sponsor? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 546451] Review Request: php-pear-HTML-Template-IT - Simple template 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=546451 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|php-pear-HTML-Template-IT-1 |php-pear-HTML-Template-IT-1 |.3.0-2.fc12 |.3.0-2.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 587438] Review Request: rubygem-snmp - A Ruby implementation of SNMP (the Simple Network Management Protocol)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=587438 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-07-02 15:25:21 EDT --- rubygem-snmp-1.0.3-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 587438] Review Request: rubygem-snmp - A Ruby implementation of SNMP (the Simple Network Management Protocol)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=587438 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|rubygem-snmp-1.0.3-1.fc13 |rubygem-snmp-1.0.3-1.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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 546451] Review Request: php-pear-HTML-Template-IT - Simple template 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=546451 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-07-02 15:26:47 EDT --- php-pear-HTML-Template-IT-1.3.0-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 610934] Review Request: go - The Google Go Programming Language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610934 Randall Berry randyn3...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608066] LDC a compiler for the D programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608066 --- Comment #8 from MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com 2010-07-02 15:30:27 EDT --- i need a review :) (is not my first 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 599720] Review Request: Spawning26 - A HTTP server for hosting WSGI python web applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=599720 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2010-07-02 15:43:38 EDT --- After talking with Dave and Toshio and other various discussions, I decided this package isn't needed. Since it's an application, not a library it doesn't make sense to have versions for the various stacks here. 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 599723] Review Request: pyjamas26 - A python to Javascript compiler, Widget set, Framework and Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=599723 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Comment #2 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2010-07-02 15:43:42 EDT --- After talking with Dave and Toshio and other various discussions, I decided this package isn't needed. Since it's an application, not a library it doesn't make sense to have versions for the various stacks here. 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 585719] Review Request: wxformbuilder - The OpenSource wxWidgets Designer, GUI Builder, and RAD 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=585719 Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(terje...@phys.ntn | |u.no) | --- Comment #16 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no 2010-07-02 15:47:41 EDT --- Hi Alain, sorry about the delay. I started on a complete analyse of the license status. That job was a bit more complicated than expected (still more surprises in this package). Let's start with what I have so far. o sdk/tinyxml/ - seems to be a private copy of a lib already in Fedora, not allowed. o src/codegen/codeparser.h src/codegen/codeparser.cpp - no information about license, o controls/src/wxScintilla/scintilla/src/RESearch.h controls/src/wxScintilla/scintilla/src/StyleContext.h - Public Domain o src/controls/include/wx/propgrid/* src/controls/include/wx/wxFlatNotebook/* src/controls/include/wx/wxScintilla/* - wxWindows license? is that GPLv2+? o src/controls/src/wxScintilla/scintilla/src/* a strange mix of - BSD, wxWin, Public Domain, GPLv2+? Would be nice you could comment on this findings and contact upstream about this fuzzy license status. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 537437] Review Request: itextsharp - Mono library for generating PDF files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=537437 Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DEFERRED --- Comment #2 from Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee 2010-07-02 16:22:39 EDT --- The licensing problems should be solved now, but I'm no longer interested in this package. Closing the ticket. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 566410] Review Request: snmpcheck - An utility to get information via SNMP protocols
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=566410 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fab...@bernewireless.net Blocks||563471(FE-SECLAB), ||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Bug 566410 depends on bug 566407, which changed state. Bug 566407 Summary: Review Request: perl-Number-Bytes-Human - Convert byte count to human readable format https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=566407 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA Resolution||ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2010-07-02 16:25:00 EDT --- Added the FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocker because it's your first 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 564537] Review Request: grc - simple python logfile colouriser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=564537 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fab...@bernewireless.net --- Comment #5 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2010-07-02 16:51:39 EDT --- Some quick comments: - The source code contains a man page. The rpm is missing that man page. - There is a mixed use of spaces and tabs. - Please have a lot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python - Please get in touch with upstream about the license. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609728] Review Request: sparsehash - Extremely memory-efficient C++ hash_map implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609728 --- Comment #3 from Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee 2010-07-02 17:36:44 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) Two suggestions: 1. move all files too -devel subpackage When I was creating the package, I couldn't make up my mind whether to put everything in -devel or not. If you think it's better that way, I'll move all files over to -devel. 2. It'll better to leave this package as noarch, I think test in not very useful for development libs. You can add %check to packages which require sparsehash. I respectfully disagree here. Building the package as noarch means that it's built only once for every primary architecture we have. For F-12, it's only one build for i686, x86_64, ppc, and ppc64. That would mean not running self tests on 3/4 architectures. If we have a package which comes with self tests, we should try to run them if possible. You are saying these tests should be moved to packages which require sparsehash; I disagree. Every component should test itself if it is possible. And besides that, a large part of sparsehash package consists of self tests; if they aren't necessary why do you think upstream wrote them in the first place? The package is also less than 0.5 MB, which wouldn't be much of a saving on mirrors either. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609728] Review Request: sparsehash - Extremely memory-efficient C++ hash_map implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609728 --- Comment #4 from Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee 2010-07-02 17:41:07 EDT --- * Sat Jul 03 2010 Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee - 1.7-2 - Move all files to -devel (#609728) Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/sparsehash.spec SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/sparsehash-1.7-2.fc14.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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609728] Review Request: sparsehash - Extremely memory-efficient C++ hash_map implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609728
Adam Miller maxamill...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maxamill...@fedoraproject.o
||rg
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Adam Miller maxamill...@fedoraproject.org 2010-07-02
17:58:01 EDT ---
YES - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
YES - Spec file matches base package name.
YES - Spec has consistant macro usage.
YES - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
YES - License
YES - License field in spec matches
YES - License file included in package
YES - Spec in American English
YES - Spec is legible.
YES - Sources match upstream md5sum:
NA - Package needs ExcludeArch
YES - BuildRequires correct
NA - Spec handles locales/find_lang
NA - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
YES - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
YES - Package has a correct %clean section.
YES - Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
YES - Package is code or permissible content.
NA - Doc subpackage needed/used.
YES - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
YES - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
NA - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
NA - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
NA - .so files in -devel subpackage.
YES - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
NA - .la files are removed.
NA - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
YES - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
YES - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
YES - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
YES - Package owns all the directories it creates.
NO - No rpmlint output.-- RPMLINT false W about invalid URL, verified with
spectool
- final provides and requires are sane:
(include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo =;
rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done
manually indented after checking each line. I also remove the rpmlib junk and
anything provided by glibc.)
[16:56:18][a...@turnip][result]+ for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides
$i; echo =; rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done
sparsehash-1.7-2.fc13.src.rpm
=
rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
sparsehash-devel-1.7-2.fc13.x86_64.rpm
sparsehash-devel = 1.7-2.fc13
sparsehash-devel(x86-64) = 1.7-2.fc13
=
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1
SHOULD Items:
YES - Should build in mock.
YES - Should build on all supported archs
NA - Should function as described.
NA - Should have sane scriptlets.
- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
YES - Should have dist tag
YES - Should package latest version
- check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)
No issues found.
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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609728] Review Request: sparsehash - Extremely memory-efficient C++ hash_map implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609728 Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee 2010-07-02 18:03:38 EDT --- Thanks for the quick review, Adam! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: sparsehash Short Description: Extremely memory-efficient C++ hash_map implementation Owners: kalev Branches: F-13 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 605423] Review Request: python-dulwich - A python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=605423
Christian Krause c...@plauener.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||c...@plauener.de
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|c...@plauener.de
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Christian Krause c...@plauener.de 2010-07-02 18:08:54 EDT
---
Here is the full review for the latest package:
* rpmlint: TODO (minor)
rpmlint RPMS/i686/python-dulwich-* SRPMS/python-dulwich-0.6.0-2.fc12.src.rpm
SPECS/python-dulwich.spec
python-dulwich.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/python-dulwich-0.6.0/docs/tutorial/test.py
python-dulwich.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dul-web
python-dulwich.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dul-daemon
python-dulwich.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dulwich
In general the rpmlint output is OK, probably it would be better to remove the
+x permission from test.py just to keep rpmlint silent. It should be no problem
just to use python test.py whenever someone tries out the example from the
tutorial.
* naming: TODO
- name does not match upstream: Is there a specific reason why the name was
altered to python-dulwich instead of using plain dulwich?
- spec file name matches package name
* License: OK
- license file packaged
- GPLv2+ acceptable
- license matches sources
* specfile in American English and legible: OK
* %description: OK
* Sources: OK
- Source0 URL ok
- spectool -g python-dulwich.spec works
- sources matches upstream - md5sum:
ea3ed7198ce154cf05784a3f75b4013f dulwich-0.6.0.tar.gz
* Python requirements:
- BR: python-devel: OK
- set python_sitearch when including arch-specific libraries: OK
* Compilation: TODO
- package does not build in koji
- you have to add python-nose as BR for the tests
* debuginfo sub-package: OK
- non-empty
* BuildRequires: TODO (see Compilation)
* Requires: TODO
- the used command for filtering out unwanted dependencies will probably remove
too many provides/requires (grep -v %{srcname})
- something like grep -v -E '(_objects.so|_pack.so)' should be better
* Locales handling: OK (n/a)
* shared/static libs, pkgconfig/header/*.la files: OK (n/a)
* packages must own all directories: OK
* files not listed twice: OK
* permissions of files: OK
- %defattr used
- final file permissions OK
* %clean section: OK
* macro usage: OK
* code vs. content: OK (no content)
* large documentation into subpackage: OK (n/a)
* GUI application needs %{name}.desktop: OK (n/a)
* no directories owned which are already owned by other packages: OK
* rm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %{install}: OK
* all file names UTF8: OK
* functional test: ??
- dulwich itself works fine
- dul-daemon works for some local git clones, but does not for others (I could
not clone from them.)
- dul-web did not work for me
Since the client functionality seems to work quite ok, I think these bugs
should not block the review. However it would be good if you could report them
upstream - with luck upstream can provide some bug fixes short-term.
* Scriptlets: OK (n/a)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 605423] Review Request: python-dulwich - A python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=605423 --- Comment #4 from Christian Krause c...@plauener.de 2010-07-02 18:15:28 EDT --- Please disregard my comment about the package name. python-dulwich is perfectly fine according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29 . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 610980] New: Review Request: mspdebug - Debugger and gdb proxy for MSP430 MCUs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mspdebug - Debugger and gdb proxy for MSP430 MCUs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610980 Summary: Review Request: mspdebug - Debugger and gdb proxy for MSP430 MCUs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: opensou...@till.name QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/mspdebug.spec SRPM URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/mspdebug-0.9-2.0.20100702git74a11c1a.fc12.src.rpm Description: A a free debugger for use with MSP430 MCUs. It supports FET430UIF, eZ430, RF2500 and TI Chronos devices. It can be used as a proxy for gdb or as an independent debugger with support for programming, disassembly and reverse engineering. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 610980] Review Request: mspdebug - Debugger and gdb proxy for MSP430 MCUs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610980 Till Maas opensou...@till.name changed: What|Removed |Added CC||opensou...@till.name, ||rspan...@zepler.net --- Comment #1 from Till Maas opensou...@till.name 2010-07-02 18:59:04 EDT --- rpmlint only complains about not knowing gdb. I just noticed the typo in the first sentence of the description, I will fix it if other issues come up or before building it in Fedora if it is ok for the reviewer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609079] Review Request: R-GenomicRanges - Representation and manipulation of genomic intervals
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609079 --- Comment #1 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr 2010-07-02 19:52:01 EDT --- I have seen that the Requires and BuildRequires line is not perfect, I should replace the R to R-core on Requires and remove the R in the BuildRequires. I will do this after the feed back from the reviewer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 610980] Review Request: mspdebug - Debugger and gdb proxy for MSP430 MCUs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610980 --- Comment #2 from Robert Spanton rspan...@zepler.net 2010-07-02 19:49:05 EDT --- Hi Till, Why are you shipping the git version, rather than the release? Cheers, Rob -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 610980] Review Request: mspdebug - Debugger and gdb proxy for MSP430 MCUs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610980 --- Comment #3 from Till Maas opensou...@till.name 2010-07-02 20:04:24 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) Why are you shipping the git version, rather than the release? The git repo contains all the patches I need to use it with a MSP-Fet430UIF to debug TelosB motes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 581220] Review Request: qtsingleapplication - Qt library to start applications only once per user
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=581220 --- Comment #11 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2010-07-02 20:24:29 EDT --- Thanks for the comments. (In reply to comment #8) I wonder if upstream is going to be consistent with using _ in versions; we should be careful to avoid introducing Epoch in case they want to release, say, 2.6.1 next. rpmdev-vercmp says that 2.6_1 is newer than 2.6.1. Currently I have set the version to 2.6. So we are safe for the time being, there is no problem with updating without introducing epoch. Are we allowed to have _ in the version tag? Guidelines tell us to move the nonnumeric characters to the release tag. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Version (In reply to comment #9) /usr/include/QtSolutions should be owned by qtsingleapplication-devel, otherwise removing the package will leave dangling empty directory behind. Nope. There is no need. qtlockedfile owns that directory. There are separate qtsingleapplication.h and qtsinglecoreapplication.h headers in the include dir and in the build dir there are separate qtsingleapplication.o and qtsinglecoreapplication.o object files; however there is only qtsingleapplication DSO installed and the Core variant appears to be missing. They are not missing. The symbols of both are built into the same DSO. (In reply to comment #10) It might actually make sense to just remove Core headers too. We can always fix up Core library build later when some programs that actually need this show up in Fedora. Right now I can't think of any package which can take advantage of QtSingleCoreApplication. clementine includes a modified version of QtSingleCoreApplication in addition to QtSingleApplication, but I don't think they are using it. I can remove this library... However if you choose to fix Core build, I think it should go in a separate subpackage: qtsingleapplication - depends on QtQui qtsinglecoreapplication - depends only on QtCore ... or move it into another subpackage. But is there really a need? It occupies so little space, and as you said, there is nothing else that requires 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 581220] Review Request: qtsingleapplication - Qt library to start applications only once per user
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=581220 --- Comment #12 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2010-07-02 20:29:44 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) clementine includes a modified version of QtSingleCoreApplication in addition to QtSingleApplication, but I don't think they are using it. I can remove this library... By the way, the only reason I included this library is because opensuse is including it, as you can see in the above link you gave. I took the patch from there. I kept QtSingleCoreApplication in the same DSO to keep things consistent with opensuse. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 581220] Review Request: qtsingleapplication - Qt library to start applications only once per user
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=581220 --- Comment #13 from Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee 2010-07-02 21:30:27 EDT --- Currently I have set the version to 2.6. So we are safe for the time being, there is no problem with updating without introducing epoch. Are we allowed to have _ in the version tag? Guidelines tell us to move the nonnumeric characters to the release tag. I'm sure we are technically allowed to have _ in the version tag, but I think we don't want to do that. Keeping the version at 2.6 is fine. Another option would be to set version to 2.6.1 to take into account the _1, but it doesn't matter much either way. They are not missing. The symbols of both are built into the same DSO. Aha, I guess that works for now. /usr/include/QtSolutions should be owned by qtsingleapplication-devel, otherwise removing the package will leave dangling empty directory behind. Nope. There is no need. qtlockedfile owns that directory. Yes, qtlockedfile-devel owns the directory, but that doesn't help us because qtsingleapplication-devel doesn't depend on qtlockedfile-devel. The directory needs to be owned by something in the dependency chain; if some other unrelated leaf package somewhere in the Fedora package collection owns the directory, it doesn't help us solve the problem here. There are a few options how to solve this: a) have both packages own the directory; b) have qtsingleapplication-devel depend on qtlockedfile-devel; c) let qt-devel own the directory. Option b is not a good one because it pulls in an unrelated package which we wouldn't normally need. Option a is what I think is the most correct approach here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Multiple_packages_own_files_in_a_common_directory_but_none_of_them_needs_to_require_the_others. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609728] Review Request: sparsehash - Extremely memory-efficient C++ hash_map implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609728 --- Comment #7 from Chen Lei supercyp...@gmail.com 2010-07-02 21:39:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) (In reply to comment #1) Two suggestions: 1. move all files too -devel subpackage When I was creating the package, I couldn't make up my mind whether to put everything in -devel or not. If you think it's better that way, I'll move all files over to -devel. It's a convension, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609788 2. It'll better to leave this package as noarch, I think test in not very useful for development libs. You can add %check to packages which require sparsehash. I respectfully disagree here. Building the package as noarch means that it's built only once for every primary architecture we have. For F-12, it's only one build for i686, x86_64, ppc, and ppc64. That would mean not running self tests on 3/4 architectures. If we have a package which comes with self tests, we should try to run them if possible. You are saying these tests should be moved to packages which require sparsehash; I disagree. Every component should test itself if it is possible. And besides that, a large part of sparsehash package consists of self tests; if they aren't necessary why do you think upstream wrote them in the first place? The package is also less than 0.5 MB, which wouldn't be much of a saving on mirrors either. You can add noarch to -devel subpackage, the test will still run on all arch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609728] Review Request: sparsehash - Extremely memory-efficient C++ hash_map implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609728 --- Comment #8 from Chen Lei supercyp...@gmail.com 2010-07-02 21:49:36 EDT --- s/conversion/convention -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 581220] Review Request: qtsingleapplication - Qt library to start applications only once per user
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=581220 --- Comment #14 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2010-07-02 22:00:52 EDT --- wrt versioning, translating 2.6_1 into 2.6.1 is definitely the way to go here. (and lobbying upstream to something saner in the meantime) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 581220] Review Request: qtsingleapplication - Qt library to start applications only once per user
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=581220 --- Comment #15 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2010-07-02 23:05:14 EDT --- Oh, good catch Kalev. I missed the devel part of the dependencies. I will add the directory ownership. So, we are not playing safe and setting version to 2.6.1? I am fine with that. Keep your fingers crossed. Meanwhile, I experienced with clementine for wrapping the qtapplication with a new class and using that one instead, but these guys modified some private members. I have to rewrite at least 80% of the code (which isn't that long, ~60-70 lines) to wrap the class. This doesn't make sense. How about I add new members with overloading or renaming so that the original API stays intact, and we have an additional API that can be used by clementine? We can then send this patch upstream, although I doubt that they will respond. They didn't respond to my previous queries. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 610211] Review Request: unique3 - Single instance support for GTK3 applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610211 --- Comment #9 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2010-07-02 23:21:17 EDT --- It is named this way for consistency with the unique package. If you look at http://live.gnome.org/LibUnique, you will find equal amounts of references to libunique and unique. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609728] Review Request: sparsehash - Extremely memory-efficient C++ hash_map implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609728 --- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2010-07-02 23:28:23 EDT --- CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 610211] Review Request: unique3 - Single instance support for GTK3 applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610211 --- Comment #10 from Chen Lei supercyp...@gmail.com 2010-07-02 23:34:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) It is named this way for consistency with the unique package. If you look at http://live.gnome.org/LibUnique, you will find equal amounts of references to libunique and unique. IMHO, I think unique should be renamed to libunique. Upstream renamed tarball to libunique completely after version 1.0.6. See 1.0.4 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=1058822 1.0.8 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=1181378 I think it's more reasonable to rename this package to libunique or libunique3. Also, only unique tarball is only available at http://people.gnome.org/~ebassi/source/ Gnome site always use libunique as tarball name even on version 1.0.0. See http://ftp.acc.umu.se/pub/GNOME/sources/libunique/1.0/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609788] Review Request: mdds - A collection of multi-dimensional data structures and indexing algorithms
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609788 --- Comment #9 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de 2010-07-03 00:53:04 EDT --- * Is there a special reason for you to submit packages as attachments? The usual way would be to upload them somewhere and to add links here, such these binary blobs do not end up filling bugzilla. Presuming you have a Fedora account, you also likely have a fas-account.fedorapeople.org account you could use for this. * Please increment %release with each submittion update. Not doing so adds unneccessary difficulties to a reviewer to destingush the submission updates. 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 611010] New: webkitgtk3 - GTK+ 3 port of webkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: webkitgtk3 - GTK+ 3 port of webkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611010 Summary: webkitgtk3 - GTK+ 3 port of webkit Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mcla...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- http://mclasen.fedorapeople.org/webkitgtk3.spec http://mclasen.fedorapeople.org/webkitgtk3-1.3.2-1.fc14.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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
