[Bug 499087] Review Request: perl-Locale-PO - Perl module for manipulating .po entries from GNU gettext
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499087 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added CC||r.landm...@redhat.com Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Iain Arnell 2010-07-18 01:48:14 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-Locale-PO New Branches: EL-5 EL-6 Owners: iarnell rlandmann InitialCC: perl-sig Note that perl-Locale-PO is currently in EL6 optional, but not for all archs. -- Configure 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 615319] Review Request: cgnslib - Computational Fluid Dynamics General Notation System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615319 --- Comment #3 from Shakthi Kannan 2010-07-18 00:48:06 EDT --- Thanks for the review. 1. Mock runs fine here (on rawhide): $ mock -r fedora-13-i386 --rebuild cgnslib-2.5-2.r4.fc14.src.rpm INFO: mock.py version 1.1.1 starting... State Changed: init plugins State Changed: start INFO: Start(cgnslib-2.5-2.r4.fc14.src.rpm) Config(fedora-13-i386) State Changed: lock buildroot State Changed: clean State Changed: init State Changed: lock buildroot Mock Version: 1.1.1 INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.1 INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled yum cache State Changed: cleaning yum metadata INFO: enabled ccache State Changed: running yum State Changed: creating cache State Changed: setup State Changed: build INFO: Done(cgnslib-2.5-2.r4.fc14.src.rpm) Config(fedora-13-i386) 23 minutes 39 seconds INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-13-i386/result 2. The tests use the built shared library which you can see from the build output. 3. Updated license to use zlib (only): SPEC: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/cgnslib.spec SRPM: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/cgnslib-2.5-3.r4.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 609528] Review Request: ghc-cairo - Haskell Cairo bindings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609528 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|615692 | -- Configure 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 609518] Review Request: ghc-glib - Haskell GLib binding
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609518 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|615692 | -- Configure 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 615692] Review Request: ghc-gtk - Haskell gtk binding
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615692 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on|609518, 609528 | -- Configure 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 615700] New: Review Request: ghc-gtksourceview2 - Haskell gtksourceview2 binding
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ghc-gtksourceview2 - Haskell gtksourceview2 binding https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615700 Summary: Review Request: ghc-gtksourceview2 - Haskell gtksourceview2 binding Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: peter...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-gtksourceview2/ghc-gtksourceview2.spec SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-gtksourceview2/ghc-gtksourceview2-0.11.0-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: A Haskell gtksourceview2 binding. Part of the gtk2hs project. -- Configure 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 615700] Review Request: ghc-gtksourceview2 - Haskell gtksourceview2 binding
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615700 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-haskell-l...@redhat. ||com Depends on||615692 -- Configure 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 615692] Review Request: ghc-gtk - Haskell gtk binding
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615692 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||615700 -- Configure 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 537325] Review Request: lv2-fil-plugins - Four-band parametric equalisers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=537325 --- Comment #18 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2010-07-17 23:48:20 EDT --- Great. Back to where I started. :) I brought up the issue in FE-Legal list again. Let's see what will come out this time: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2010-July/001340.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615695] New: Review Request: libaccounts-glib - Nokia Maemo Accounts base library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: libaccounts-glib - Nokia Maemo Accounts base library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615695 Summary: Review Request: libaccounts-glib - Nokia Maemo Accounts base library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: supercyp...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Description: Nokia Maemo Accounts base library This package is a core component in meego 1.1. SRPM:http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1338197/1/libaccounts-glib-0.39-1.fc13.src.rpm SPEC:http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1338197/1/libaccounts-glib.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 537325] Review Request: lv2-fil-plugins - Four-band parametric equalisers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=537325
--- Comment #17 from Mattias Ellert 2010-07-17
23:21:30 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> That was the original license tag I set on this package (2.0-1). However,
> Michael pointed out that this is wrong. See comments 1-8 above. I also asked
> this on Fedora Legal list
>
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-December/msg00029.html
>
> The outcome was "There is no such thing as effective license, or no such thing
> as most restrictive license wins. List all licenses included in the tag".
>
> So I changed it to LGPLv2+ and GPLv2 and GPLv2+
I find this to contradict item 1 and 2 in the following section of the Fedora
Licensing FAQ:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_should_I_handle_multiple_licensing_situations.3F
1. The source code contains some .c files which are GPLv2+ and some other .c
files which are BSD. They're compiled together to form an executable. Since
some of the files are licensed as GPL, the resulting executable is also GPL.
The License tag should read: License: GPLv2+
Note that you do NOT need to list BSD in the License tag, the License tag
reflects the resulting, packaged, items in the binary RPM.
2. The source code contains some .c files which are GPLv2 and some other .c
files which are GPLv2+. They're compiled together to form an executable.
In this case, the stricter license wins, so the resulting executable is
GPLv2. The License tag should read: License: GPLv2
Note that you do NOT need to list GPLv2 and GPLv2+ in the License tag.
Due to the way GPL is constructed ("You may not impose any further restrictions
on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.") - The most
restrictive license of GPL and any GPL compatible license is always GPL. If
none of the licenses involved was GPL I would agree with you that they should
all be listed, but since GPL is involved in this case, I still think the proper
License tag for this package is GPLv2.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 583327] Review Request: clementine - A music player and library organiser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=583327 --- Comment #6 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2010-07-17 22:44:40 EDT --- SPEC: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/clementine.spec SRPM: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/clementine-0.4.2-2.fc13.src.rpm This update fixes a segfault because of missing font paths when linked to the system projectM. -- Configure 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 614024] Review Request: ghc-pango - Haskell pango binding
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=614024 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||615692 -- Configure 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 615692] Review Request: ghc-gtk - Haskell gtk binding
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615692 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||609518, 609528, 614024 -- Configure 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 609528] Review Request: ghc-cairo - Haskell Cairo bindings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609528 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||615692 -- Configure 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 609518] Review Request: ghc-glib - Haskell GLib binding
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609518 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||615692 -- Configure 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 615692] New: Review Request: ghc-gtk - Haskell gtk binding
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ghc-gtk - Haskell gtk binding https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615692 Summary: Review Request: ghc-gtk - Haskell gtk binding Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: peter...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-gtk/ghc-gtk.spec SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-gtk/ghc-gtk-0.11.0-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: Haskell gtk binding from the gtk2hs project. Will add optional gio dep after that is packaged too. -- Configure 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 615669] Review Request: perl-Crypt-Cracklib - perl module to interact with libcrack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615669 --- Comment #4 from Carl Thompson 2010-07-17 20:41:12 EDT --- Submitted both patches in package upstream to author: https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=59488 https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=59489 -- Configure 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 611372] Review Request: perl-Net-Twitter - Perl interface to 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=611372 Carl Thompson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@red-dragon.com --- Comment #1 from Carl Thompson 2010-07-17 20:33:07 EDT --- (unofficial) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines rpmlint perl-Net-Twitter.spec perl-Net-Twitter.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/Net/Net-Twitter-3.13006.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. error: Failed build dependencies: perl(Net::OAuth) >= 0.25 is needed by perl-Net-Twitter-3.13006-1.fc13.noarch dependencies need to be available from repo or possibly as a package being reviewed (I think). Maybe put in a bug report to have that package updated. -- Configure 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 615028] Review Request: php-phpunit-PHP-Timer - PHP Utility class for timing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615028 Carl Thompson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@red-dragon.com --- Comment #1 from Carl Thompson 2010-07-17 19:52:25 EDT --- (unofficial) rpmlint php-phpunit-PHP-Timer-1.0.0-1.fc13.noarch.rpm php-phpunit-PHP-Timer.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US php-phpunit-PHP-Timer.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines -- Configure 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 615554] Review Request: minitunes - A better music player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615554 --- Comment #5 from Germán Racca 2010-07-17 19:42:25 EDT --- Here is the answer from the author of Minitunes: - Hello Germán, Thanks for your interest in Minitunes! Minitunes is GPL. The reason why a copy of the LGPL is included is that some files (some Qt utility classes) are LGPL. This was brought up when Ubuntu people were packaging Minitube, another app of mine. http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/minitube "all files with nokia copyright are not available under GPL3+ only (at least some of them are triple-licensed with commercial, lgpl or gpl) *) in consequence the package is missing a complete copy of the LGPL" Flavio - -- Configure 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 615669] Review Request: perl-Crypt-Cracklib - perl module to interact with libcrack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615669 --- Comment #3 from Carl Thompson 2010-07-17 19:34:17 EDT --- Updated spec so that spec and package pass rpmlint with no warnings or errors. -- Configure 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 615554] Review Request: minitunes - A better music player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615554 --- Comment #4 from Germán Racca 2010-07-17 19:06:21 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Could you please get in touch with the author and find out what license does > he > really want to use for this program ? None of the source files includes a > reference to the license, the web site mentions GPL, the "INSTALL" file > mentions GPLv3+ and the tarball includes not only the GPLv3 but also the LGPL > license file. But this last one is not referenced anywhere... OK, done! I have sent an email to the author of the program. Regards, German. -- Configure 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 615554] Review Request: minitunes - A better music player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615554 --- Comment #3 from Carl Thompson 2010-07-17 18:15:38 EDT --- error in previous post, wrong project. -- Configure 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 615554] Review Request: minitunes - A better music player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615554 Carl Thompson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@red-dragon.com --- Comment #2 from Carl Thompson 2010-07-17 18:14:55 EDT --- rpmlint opencc* opencc.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache opencc.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/opencc ['/usr/lib64'] opencc.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/opencc_dict ['/usr/lib64'] opencc.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man1 opencc.x86_64: W: empty-%post opencc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache opencc-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache opencc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation opencc-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Runtime -> Run time, Run-time, Runtish opencc-libs.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache opencc-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libopencc.so.0.0.0 e...@glibc_2.2.5 opencc-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation opencc-libs.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libopencc.so.0.0.0 opencc-libs.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libopencc.so.0.0.0 opencc-libs.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES/opencc.mo opencc-libs.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/zh_HK/LC_MESSAGES/opencc.mo opencc-libs.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/zh_TW/LC_MESSAGES/opencc.mo 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 12 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 615577] Review Request: -
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615577 --- Comment #2 from Carl Thompson 2010-07-17 18:13:37 EDT --- previous checks based on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines -- Configure 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 615153] 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=615153 --- Comment #6 from Germán Racca 2010-07-17 18:03:37 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) Hello Ankur: > Yes. I think that would be better. Well...I'm not sure right now if it is better to package them separately, because this version of tint2 has a config tool, called tint2conf, which once opened it uses tintwizard.py to configure the theme. But coming back to the license issue...is it not allowed to use a combination of 2 licenses in a single package? Could you please clarify this to me? Because in [1] says we can. If this is the case, I can package tint2 and tintwizard.py together without any problem. [1]https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios > It still shouldn't call it a binary AFAIK. It's a python script. Although I > may > be wrong. I'd suggest asking upstream to make up a man page for tintwizard and > include it in the distribution too. Certainly I could suggest upstream to add a man page for tintwizard.py, but I don't think it is essential here because it is only a warning and to write a man page could take a long time... Ankur, again many thanks for your time, and I would like you to clarify my doubts in order to go on with this package. Regards, German. -- Configure 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 615577] Review Request: -
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615577
Carl Thompson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fed...@red-dragon.com
--- Comment #1 from Carl Thompson 2010-07-17 18:04:14
EDT ---
(informal)
Spec file errors:
no file attributes set for %files libs or %files devel
Source0 url is a 404 error
currently you have %{_datadir}/locale that should be using %find_lang macro
no %post or %postun defined to call ldconfig for the shared objects placed in
the system library directory.
License is generalized. Is this Apache (ASL) v1, 1.1, or 2.0?
--
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 591900] Review Request: libcapifax - Support for Sending/receiving faxes over CAPI capable devices
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591900 Bug 591900 depends on bug 566909, which changed state. Bug 566909 Summary: RFE: please change isdn4k-utils to use capi20.new https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=566909 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||ERRATA --- Comment #7 from Louis Lagendijk 2010-07-17 17:57:28 EDT --- Ping, Felix are you still interested in doing the review for libcapifax? -- Configure 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 613525] Review Request: klog - KLog is a Ham radio logging program for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613525
--- Comment #5 from Randall Berry 2010-07-17 17:51:58
EDT ---
Spec: http://dp67.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/SPECS/klog.spec
SRPM: http://dp67.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/SRPMS/klog-0.5.6-4.fc13.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #4)
> +# klog.sh.in - Install wraapper script for klog
> I bet "wraapper" is not in the dictionary, even in HAM operators' one :)
Done: Fixed my twitchy finger action. :)
> In the following sequence
> mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_sysconfdir}/skel/.%{name}/
> mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_sysconfdir}/skel/.%{name}/data/
> mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_sysconfdir}/skel/.%{name}/awa/
> there is no actual error, but
> a) the first command is not needed, given that the second and third ones would
> create the whole directory structure, due to the "-p" parameter.
> b) OTOH, if you preserve the first command in the sequence, the second and
> third one no longer need "-p" because the whole directory structure would have
> been created by the first command.
Done: Removed first command.
> The following part
> desktop-file-validate \
> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}/applications/kde4/%{name}.desktop
> is superflous, given that you have used desktop-file-install to install AND
> verfy the file. Please either use desktop-file-install to verify the file and
> put it in place OR desktop-file-validate if the installer already copies the
> file to the correct place.
Done: Used desktop-file-install instead of both install/validate
> As a matter of style I think that you should have used either use %{name} or
> "klog" in both desktop-file-* invocations.
Done: Changed klog in desktop-file-install to %{name}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 613646] Review Request: twlog - A simple day to day logging program for ham radio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613646 --- Comment #7 from Randall Berry 2010-07-17 17:50:00 EDT --- Thanks Wolfy, Spec URL: http://dp67.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/SPECS/twlog.spec SRPM URL: http://dp67.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/SRPMS/twlog-2.7-1.fc13.src.rpm - New upstream release - Edit spec per review - Added desktop-file-install to verify .desktop file, not in review recommendations but I figured it couldn't hurt. rpmlint output: twlog.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary twlog 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. (In reply to comment #6) > Randall, is there any reason to not use the newer upstream version ( > http://wa0eir.home.mchsi.com/src/twlog-2.7.src.tar.gz ) ? Done: New upstream release posted after initial review was submitted. > I suggest to trim a bit the description. References to the changes over the > older version (such as " a new Matrix window ...", "A [...] was added...") > are, > in my opinion, completely irrelevant, just include a list of features. Done: Trimmed the description to basic details. > If you do not plan to build the package for older distros ( EPEL , F12) you > can > remove the BuildRoot tag and "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" invocations. I had planned to build for all currently supported Fedora releases. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615554] Review Request: minitunes - A better music player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615554 --- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant 2010-07-17 17:47:18 EDT --- Could you please get in touch with the author and find out what license does he really want to use for this program ? None of the source files includes a reference to the license, the web site mentions GPL, the "INSTALL" file mentions GPLv3+ and the tarball includes not only the GPLv3 but also the LGPL license file. But this last one is not referenced anywhere... -- Configure 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 614967] Review Request: perl-Git-PurePerl - Pure Perl interface to Git repositories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=614967 --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell 2010-07-17 17:41:20 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Git-PurePerl Short Description: Pure Perl interface to Git repositories Owners: iarnell Branches: F-12 F-13 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure 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 615669] Review Request: perl-Crypt-Cracklib - perl module to interact with libcrack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615669 --- Comment #2 from Carl Thompson 2010-07-17 17:40:41 EDT --- Updated Spec after run of rpmlint to fix warnings. New spec is uploaded to url listed. -- Configure 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 614967] Review Request: perl-Git-PurePerl - Pure Perl interface to Git repositories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=614967 Iain Arnell 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 614967] Review Request: perl-Git-PurePerl - Pure Perl interface to Git repositories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=614967
manuel wolfshant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant 2010-07-17
17:31:35 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/noarch
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL+ or Artistic
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of source file: 58f4df07daec0869bd01ec07f44a3d21c7b38855
Git-PurePerl-0.46.tar.gz
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Final provides and requires are sane.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: koji scratch build
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: koji scratch build
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] %check is present and the test passes.
=== OPTIONAL ITEMS ===
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
=== Final Notes ===
I assume that you do not intend to branch this package for EPEL, therefore you
could remove from the spec the optional items from above. OTOH you'd do a favor
to anyone wishing to build this package for EPEL if you leave them...
*** 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 615508] Review Request: nut - A nutritional Software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615508 manuel wolfshant changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard||Not ready --- Comment #2 from manuel wolfshant 2010-07-17 17:15:00 EDT --- "nut" as an application and package name is already in use ( Network UPS Tools - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226209 ) for a long long time. Please contact your upstream and kindly ask them to look for another name for the software. If they do not agree, you'll have to look for another name for the application and package (for instance "nut-nutrition" as Ubuntu seemed to have used) before proposing again its inclusion. I'm setting whiteboard to "Not ready" until the name conflict is solved. -- Configure 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 615669] Review Request: perl-Crypt-Cracklib - perl module to interact with libcrack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615669 manuel wolfshant 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 615669] New: Review Request: perl-Crypt-Cracklib - perl module to interact with libcrack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Crypt-Cracklib - perl module to interact with libcrack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615669 Summary: Review Request: perl-Crypt-Cracklib - perl module to interact with libcrack Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fed...@red-dragon.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://red-dragon.com/perl-Crypt-Cracklib.spec SRPM URL: http://red-dragon.com/perl-Crypt-Cracklib-1.4-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: This is a perl module to interact with system libcrack -- Configure 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 615669] Review Request: perl-Crypt-Cracklib - perl module to interact with libcrack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615669 --- Comment #1 from Carl Thompson 2010-07-17 16:57:27 EDT --- This is my first package and requesting sponsor per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Guidelines -- Configure 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 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225617 --- Comment #38 from Matej Cepl 2010-07-17 16:40:45 EDT --- what is the status of this bug now? Should it has still fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 614451] Review Request: rubygem-gherkin - A fast Gherkin lexer/parser based on the Ragel State Machine Compiler.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=614451
Mamoru Tasaka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
--- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-07-17
14:36:32 EDT ---
Initial notes:
* Macros
- %ruby_sitelib macro seems used nowhere.
- %rubyabi is defined nowhere.
* Version
- Latest seems 2.1.4
* BuildRoot
- BuildRoot tag is no longer used on Fedora.
(BuildRoot tag is still needed on EPEL)
* Compiler flags
- Fedora specific compiler flags are not correctly
honored.
-
292 Building native extensions. This could take a while...
293 /usr/bin/ruby extconf.rb
294 checking for main() in -lc... yes
295 creating Makefile
296 make
297 gcc -I. -I. -I/usr/lib/ruby/1.8/i386-linux -I. -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64
-fPIC -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables -O0 -Wall -Werror -c gherkin_lexer_ar.c
298 gcc -shared -o gherkin_lexer_ar.so gherkin_lexer_ar.o -L. -L/usr/lib
-L. -rdynamic -Wl,-export-dynamic-lruby -lc -lpthread -lrt -ldl -lcrypt
-lm -lc
299 make install
300 /usr/bin/install -c -m 0755 gherkin_lexer_ar.so
/builddir/build/BUILD/rubygem-gherkin-2.1.3/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/gherkin-2.1.3/lib
-
- Here Fedora uses optimization level "-O2" for gcc, which
is overwritten by the latter "-O0".
This is because extconf.rb files included in gem override CFLAGS.
For example, ./ext/gherkin_lexer_ar/extconf.rb says:
-
3 $CFLAGS << ' -O0 -Wall -Werror' if CONFIG['CC'] =~ /gcc/
-
Unfortunately extconf.rb is in gem file and this cannot be modified
until gem is once installed (i.e. compilation is once done).
Unless you have an idea, you have to
- Once install gem file under %_builddir (like now)
- modify extconf.rb
- and recompile C codes again.
* ext/ directory / C extension .so files
- Files under ext/ directory are usually for compiling C extension .so
files and should not be needed once .so files are created.
- Arch-dependent C extension .so files should be installed under
%ruby_sitearch:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Ruby_packages_with_binary_content.2Fshared_libraries
* Directory ownership issue
- The following directories are not owned by any packages:
-
%{geminstdir}
%{geminstdir}/bin
-
* rpmlint issue
- Please check your srpm and rebuilt binary rpms with rpmlint:
--
rubygem-gherkin-debuginfo.i686: E: debuginfo-without-sources
- Please create debuginfo rpm correctly
! Note
build.log says many warnings when creating debuginfo rpm
like:
--
918 cpio:
rubygem-gherkin-2.1.3/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/gherkin-2.1.3/ext/gherkin_lexer_ar/ext/gherkin_lexer_ar/gherkin_lexer_ar.c:
Cannot stat: No such file or directory
919 cpio:
rubygem-gherkin-2.1.3/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/gherkin-2.1.3/ext/gherkin_lexer_bg/ext/gherkin_lexer_bg/gherkin_lexer_bg.c:
Cannot stat: No such file or directory
920 cpio:
rubygem-gherkin-2.1.3/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/gherkin-2.1.3/ext/gherkin_lexer_ca/ext/gherkin_lexer_ca/gherkin_lexer_ca.c:
Cannot stat: No such file or directory
--
Note that "ext/gherkin_lexer_ar" is repeated here. You may have to
create some symlinks so that /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh can find
the corresponding source files properly.
rubygem-gherkin.i686: W: no-soname
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/gherkin-2.1.3/lib/gherkin_lexer_ar.so
rubygem-gherkin.i686: W: no-soname
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/gherkin-2.1.3/lib/gherkin_lexer_bg.so
(and others)
- As far as I checked rpmlint codes to see why these rpmlint warnings
arose,
these rpmlint warnings can be ignored. However anyway these .so files
must
be moved to under %ruby_sitearch.
rubygem-gherkin.i686: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/gherkin-2.1.3/tasks/compile.rake
rubygem-gherkin.i686: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/gherkin-2.1.3/tasks/ragel_task.rb
- Usually permissions are incorrect. Please check if these files have 0644
permission.
rubygem-gher
[Bug 610857] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610857 Shreyank Gupta changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(shreya...@gmail.c | |om) | --- Comment #3 from Shreyank Gupta 2010-07-17 14:16:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > ping? Sorry for the delay. I'm on vacation, will update spec by Monday. :-) -- Configure 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 583327] Review Request: clementine - A music player and library organiser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=583327 --- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2010-07-17 13:18:02 EDT --- After a lot of discussion with upstream, we got the 3rd party software patches backwards compatible except one. We now have command line options for cmake to link to the system libraries. The one exception is qxt. I wrote a patch to use the system qxt. However, this means that the multimedia buttons on the keyboards will not work. Still much better than what we had previously. Note that this package Buldrequires qtsingleapplication and qtiocompressor which are in updates-testing for the time being. It also requires a not-yet-built package: libprojectM. The current libprojectM package has a bug in it that causes clementine to crash. I notified its maintainer, and sent a patch. SPEC: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/clementine.spec SRPM: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/clementine-0.4.2-1.fc13.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 527402] Review Request: gmock - Google C++ Mocking 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=527402 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil changed: What|Removed |Added CC||oget.fed...@gmail.com --- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2010-07-17 13:10:38 EDT --- ping 2? Did you give up? Shall we close the bug? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 557011] Review Request: clamsmtp - A Daemon to virus scan mail using clamav
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=557011 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(nathan...@gnat.ca ||) --- Comment #9 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-07-17 11:45:31 EDT --- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 610857] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610857 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(shreya...@gmail.c ||om) --- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-07-17 11:44:08 EDT --- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 613646] Review Request: twlog - A simple day to day logging program for ham radio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613646 manuel wolfshant changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro --- Comment #6 from manuel wolfshant 2010-07-17 11:00:41 EDT --- Randall, is there any reason to not use the newer upstream version ( http://wa0eir.home.mchsi.com/src/twlog-2.7.src.tar.gz ) ? I suggest to trim a bit the description. References to the changes over the older version (such as " a new Matrix window ...", "A [...] was added...") are, in my opinion, completely irrelevant, just include a list of features. If you do not plan to build the package for older distros ( EPEL , F12) you can remove the BuildRoot tag and "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" invocations. -- Configure 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 607875] Review Request: perl-Net-IMAP-Simple-SSL - Simple IMAP account handling with SSL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607875 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2010-07-17 11:01:10 EDT --- perl-Net-IMAP-Simple-SSL-1.3-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Net-IMAP-Simple-SSL-1.3-2.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 607875] Review Request: perl-Net-IMAP-Simple-SSL - Simple IMAP account handling with SSL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607875 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2010-07-17 11:01:02 EDT --- perl-Net-IMAP-Simple-SSL-1.3-2.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Net-IMAP-Simple-SSL-1.3-2.fc12 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 607875] Review Request: perl-Net-IMAP-Simple-SSL - Simple IMAP account handling with SSL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607875 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2010-07-17 11:00:54 EDT --- perl-Net-IMAP-Simple-SSL-1.3-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Net-IMAP-Simple-SSL-1.3-2.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 607876] Review Request: perl-Net-IMAP-Simple - Simple IMAP account handling
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607876 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2010-07-17 10:51:42 EDT --- perl-Net-IMAP-Simple-1.1916-3.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Net-IMAP-Simple-1.1916-3.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 607876] Review Request: perl-Net-IMAP-Simple - Simple IMAP account handling
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607876 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2010-07-17 10:51:33 EDT --- perl-Net-IMAP-Simple-1.1916-3.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Net-IMAP-Simple-1.1916-3.fc12 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 607876] Review Request: perl-Net-IMAP-Simple - Simple IMAP account handling
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607876 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2010-07-17 10:51:48 EDT --- perl-Net-IMAP-Simple-1.1916-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Net-IMAP-Simple-1.1916-3.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 526014] Review Request:kprof - Profiling results viewer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526014 --- Comment #6 from manuel wolfshant 2010-07-17 10:37:17 EDT --- Pavel, thank you for taking over the review. I've updated the spec as follows: - fixed Source0 link ( download.sf.net => downloads.sf.net, tar.gz => tar.bz2) - added a comment regarding the patches - fixed scriplets, redirecting output to /dev/null. New spec and src.rpm are available at http://wolfy.fedorapeople.org/kprof/kprof.spec and http://wolfy.fedorapeople.org/kprof/kprof-1.4.3-4.el6.src.rpm respectively. EL6 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2325504 EL5 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2325530 rawhide scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2325544 Unfortunately I have no idea why it crashes on your F11. I have tested it over here in Centos5 and RH6beta2 and I have not noticed any problems. Note: graphviz for EL6 is available in the /optional/ set of packages, not included in the .iso. -- Configure 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 526014] Review Request:kprof - Profiling results viewer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526014 --- Comment #5 from manuel wolfshant 2010-07-17 09:48:45 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > And there 8 patches listed, in specfile only 7. Do you forgot one? There are only 7 patches. Maybe you have counted the link to SF's bug tracker, too ? I am looking over the spec now. The non-existing Source0 comes from SF switching from tar.gz to tar.bz2.. beats me why. -- Configure 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 510651] Review Request: trafshow - A tool for real-time network traffic visualization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510651 --- Comment #12 from manuel wolfshant 2010-07-17 09:15:11 EDT --- I think that you have not understood correctly Fabian's idea regarding the AUTHORS file from comment #8. He suggested the you create a simple text file named AUTHORS which would have included the names of the authors AND including this file in the rpm. Simply adding a not-existing file name in the %files section is, as you have noticed, incorrect. I am attaching a slightly edited changelog, it fixes a couple of typos from yours and also respects 80 columns limit 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 510651] Review Request: trafshow - A tool for real-time network traffic visualization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510651 manuel wolfshant changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 478613] Review Request: ledger - A powerful command-line double-entry accounting system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478613 --- Comment #20 from Jim Radford 2010-07-17 09:17:46 EDT --- I removed -common. Spec URL: http://blackbean.org/review/ledger.spec SRPM URL: http://blackbean.org/review/ledger-2.6.3-2.fc13.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 510651] Review Request: trafshow - A tool for real-time network traffic visualization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510651 --- Comment #13 from manuel wolfshant 2010-07-17 09:15:52 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=432586) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=432586) replacement content for the changelog -- Configure 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 613525] Review Request: klog - KLog is a Ham radio logging program for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613525
--- Comment #4 from manuel wolfshant 2010-07-17
09:03:55 EDT ---
+# klog.sh.in - Install wraapper script for klog
I bet "wraapper" is not in the dictionary, even in HAM operators' one :)
In the following sequence
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_sysconfdir}/skel/.%{name}/
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_sysconfdir}/skel/.%{name}/data/
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_sysconfdir}/skel/.%{name}/awa/
there is no actual error, but
a) the first command is not needed, given that the second and third ones would
create the whole directory structure, due to the "-p" parameter.
b) OTOH, if you preserve the first command in the sequence, the second and
third one no longer need "-p" because the whole directory structure would have
been created by the first command.
The following part
desktop-file-validate \
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}/applications/kde4/%{name}.desktop
is superflous, given that you have used desktop-file-install to install AND
verfy the file. Please either use desktop-file-install to verify the file and
put it in place OR desktop-file-validate if the installer already copies the
file to the correct place.
As a matter of style I think that you should have used either use %{name} or
"klog" in both desktop-file-* invocations.
--
Configure 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 510864] Review Request: colorize - Perl script to colorize logs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510864 --- Comment #8 from manuel wolfshant 2010-07-17 08:52:09 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > Manuel, do you think I shoulkd place > http://web.archive.org/web/20040604132106/http://colorize.raszi.hu/downloads/colorize_0.3.4.tar.bz2 > in Source0? To be honest, I would not do that because no one knows how long will archive.org preserve anything AND they are not the actual upstream. I would at most add a comment refering to the archive web site. Now, looking again over Jason's comment, I think that preserving the original (and now useless ) URL is not a good idea. I suggest to comment it and mention that the original site no longer exists. >What it imported from PLD repository already mentioned in first line of >changelog entry. And all old entries removed by your suggestion. In my opinion all the comments from the first entry of the changelog could be removed. Just make it: - Initial version, based on ftp://ftp.icm.edu.pl/vol/rzm1/linux-pld-linux/dists/3.0/PLD/SRPMS/RPMS/colorize-0.3.4-1.src.rpm - Add Russian summary and description That's all that one might care for when looking at the Fedora package. If they are really interested in the changes towards the PLD version, they can download the PLD one and compare. As user of the package, I could not care less about the state of the original PLD package. > Branches: F-12 F-13 EL-5 EL-6 Thank you for asking for EPEL branches. -- Configure 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 615575] Review Request: perl-Parse-Method-Signatures - Perl6 like method signature parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615575 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 591192] Review Request: dh-make - Tool that converts source archives into Debian package source
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591192 --- Comment #3 from Jeroen van Meeuwen 2010-07-17 07:26:35 EDT --- I probably packaged a previous version because that was the most recent version available at the time.(In reply to comment #1) > This should be fixed: > > $ rpmlint /home/msuchy/rpmbuild/SRPMS/dh-make-0.46-1.el6.src.rpm > dh-make.src:5: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 5, tab: line 1) > Fixed. > $ rpmlint /home/msuchy/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/dh-make-0.46-1.el6.noarch.rpm > dh-make.noarch: E: devel-dependency dpkg-devel >This should be safe to ignore, but if you did not make review yet I would > maybe suggest to keep Debian original name dpkg-dev The dpkg package is in Fedora already, and cannot be changed just like that. > dh-make.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/dh-make-0.46/examples Fixed. > dh-make.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/debian/postinst.ex 0644L /bin/sh > dh-make.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/debian/postrm.ex 0644L /bin/sh > dh-make.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/debian/emacsen-remove.ex 0644L /bin/sh > dh-make.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/debian/prerm.ex 0644L /bin/sh > dh-make.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/debian/preinst.ex 0644L /bin/sh > dh-make.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/debian/emacsen-install.ex 0644L /bin/sh > dh-make.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/debian/init.d.lsb.ex 0644L /bin/sh > Fixed. > dh-make.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/dh-make-0.46/rules > Is there reason why init.d.ex is executable and othes not? Some files have a shebang, others do not. New SPEC: http://git.ergo-project.org/?p=kolab-fedora.git;a=blob_plain;f=f12/custom-f12-buildsys/SPECS/dh-make.spec New SRPM: http://koji.ergo-project.org/packages/dh-make/0.46/2.fc12.buildsys/src/dh-make-0.46-2.fc12.buildsys.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 615577] New: Review Request: -
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615577 Summary: Review Request: - Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: byvoid@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.byvoid.com/application/opencc/download/opencc.spec SRPM URL: http://www.byvoid.com/application/opencc/download/opencc-0.0.4-1.src.rpm Description: OpenCC is a simplified-traditional Chinese conversion tool which contains runtime libraries and command line tools. OpenCC is already used by ibus-pinyin (a Chinese ime). -- Configure 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 615575] New: Review Request: perl-Parse-Method-Signatures - Perl6 like method signature parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Parse-Method-Signatures - Perl6 like method signature parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615575 Summary: Review Request: perl-Parse-Method-Signatures - Perl6 like method signature parser Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Parse-Method-Signatures/ OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: iarn...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/perl-Parse-Method-Signatures.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/perl-Parse-Method-Signatures-1.003013-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Inspired by Perl6::Signature but streamlined to just support the subset deemed useful for TryCatch and MooseX::Method::Signatures. Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2325443 *rt-0.10_01 -- Configure 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 608420] Review Request: perl-Test-Regression - Test library that can generate outputs and compare against them
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608420 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System 2010-07-17 05:11:27 EDT --- perl-Test-Regression-0.05-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Test-Regression-0.05-1.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 608420] Review Request: perl-Test-Regression - Test library that can generate outputs and compare against them
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608420 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System 2010-07-17 05:11:19 EDT --- perl-Test-Regression-0.05-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Test-Regression-0.05-1.fc12 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 576023] Review Request: libwebcam - user-space configuration of the uvcvideo driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576023
--- Comment #17 from Hans de Goede 2010-07-17 05:04:28
EDT ---
Looks good, full review below:
Good:
- rpmlint checks return:
libwebcam.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) uvcvideo -> videodisc,
videotex, videotape
libwebcam.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uvcvideo ->
videodisc, videotex, videotape
libwebcam.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US webcams -> web cams,
web-cams, webmaster
libwebcam-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
uvcdynctrl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libwebcam -> liberalism,
Liberace
uvcdynctrl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US webcams -> web cams,
web-cams, webmaster
uvcdynctrl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libwebcam ->
liberalism, Liberace
uvcdynctrl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US webcam -> web cam,
web-cam, webmaster
libwebcam.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) uvcvideo -> videodisc,
videotex, videotape
libwebcam.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uvcvideo -> videodisc,
videotex, videotape
libwebcam.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US webcams -> web cams,
web-cams, webmaster
libwebcam.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
libwebcam.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libwebcam-0.2.0.tar.xz
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings.
(these can all be ignored)
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (LGPLv3+ and GPLv3+) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86)
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file
- devel package ok
- no .la files
- post/postun ldconfig ok
- devel requires base package n-v-r
Needs work:
-missing BuildRequires gengetopt
-%{_datadir}/uvcdynctrl and %{_datadir}/uvcdynctrl/data directories are unowned
instead of:
%dir %{_datadir}/uvcdynctrl/data/046d
%{_datadir}/uvcdynctrl/data/046d/logitech.xml
you can wrirte just:
%{_datadir}/uvcdynctrl
And then rpm will include all dirs and files under %{_datadir}/uvcdynctrl
-the udev rules do not work when the camera is already plugged in when the
system starts up. The problem is that the /lib/udev/uvcdynctrl script tries
to write to /var/log when / is still mounted ro. I've fixed this locally
by changing the logfile to /dev/.udev/uvcdynctrl-udev.log
I like the packaging work I've seen from you so far, so if you fix these
remaining need work items, then I'll approve this package and sponser you.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608421] Review Request: perl-Test-Without-Module - Test fallback behaviour in absence of modules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608421 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Emmanuel Seyman 2010-07-17 04:52:53 EDT --- Thank you, Ian. Requesting CVS. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Test-Without-Module Short Description: Test fallback behaviour in absence of modules Owners: eseyman Branches: F-12 F-13 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure 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 488910] Review Request: bio2jack - A library for porting blocked io(OSS/ALSA) applications to jack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488910 David Timms changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dti...@iinet.net.au Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from David Timms 2010-07-17 04:19:24 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: bio2jack New Branches: EL-5 EL-6 Owners: dtimms -- Configure 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 483451] Review Request: k3guitune - Musical instrument tuner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483451 David Timms changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from David Timms 2010-07-17 04:19:11 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: k3guitune New Branches: EL-6 Owners: dtimms -- Configure 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 615508] Review Request: nut - A nutritional Software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615508 --- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha 2010-07-17 04:13:47 EDT --- new updated srpm and spec: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/nut/nut-15.7-2.fc13.src.rpm http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/nut/nut.spec Mock build info at http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/nut/ Ankur -- Configure 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 541524] Review Request: a2jmidid - Daemon for exposing ALSA sequencer applications in JACK MIDI system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=541524 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2010-07-17 04:00:09 EDT --- a2jmidid-6-3.fc12.1 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/a2jmidid-6-3.fc12.1 -- 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 541524] Review Request: a2jmidid - Daemon for exposing ALSA sequencer applications in JACK MIDI system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=541524 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2010-07-17 03:59:34 EDT --- a2jmidid-6-3.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/a2jmidid-6-3.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 611069] Review Request: perl-Devel-Declare - Adding keywords to perl, in perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611069 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #5 from Iain Arnell 2010-07-17 03:05:36 EDT --- Thanks for the review. Imported with a modernized spec. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 192475] Review Request: perl-PadWalker - Play with other peoples' lexical variables
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=192475 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added CC||iarn...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Iain Arnell 2010-07-17 02:57:09 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-PadWalker New Branches: EL-6 Owners: iarnell InitialCC: perl-sig rmyers steve Current EL-5 maintainer hasn't responded to EL-6 branch request in bug #612583 -- 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
