[Bug 608069] Review Request: tango - standard library for D language of d1 specification
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608069 --- Comment #55 from Chen Lei 2010-08-05 02:54:09 EDT --- (In reply to comment #54) > (In reply to comment #53) > > the review is done? > > I'm awaiting a reason why there's nothing in the root package? If its all > devel > it should just go in the root package. IE is this like vala where its > generated > code and once compiled it doesn't need the libraries themselves. >From Fedora packaging guideline: Static libraries only. When a package only provides static libraries you can place all the static library files in the *-devel subpackage. When doing this you also must have a virtual Provide for the *-static package: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608069] Review Request: tango - standard library for D language of d1 specification
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608069 --- Comment #54 from Peter Robinson 2010-08-05 02:38:11 EDT --- (In reply to comment #53) > the review is done? I'm awaiting a reason why there's nothing in the root package? If its all devel it should just go in the root package. IE is this like vala where its generated code and once compiled it doesn't need the libraries themselves. -- Configure 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 609506] Review Request: gtk2hs-buildtools - Buildtools for gtk2hs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609506 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2010-08-05 02:33:10 EDT --- gtk2hs-buildtools-0.9-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gtk2hs-buildtools-0.9-2.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 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
Stephen Kitt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||st...@sk2.org
--- Comment #11 from Stephen Kitt 2010-08-05 01:19:54 EDT ---
Applying the following patch should fix the build (it truncates the last
component of the generated versions):
--- wine-gecko-1.0.0.orig/config/version_win.pl
+++ wine-gecko-1.0.0/config/version_win.pl
@@ -54,8 +54,8 @@ sub daysFromBuildID
$d || die("Unrecognized buildid string.");
my $secondstodays = 60 * 60 * 24;
-return (POSIX::mktime(00, 00, 00, $d, $m - 1, $y - 1900) -
-POSIX::mktime(00, 00, 00, 01, 00, 100)) / $secondstodays;
+return int((POSIX::mktime(00, 00, 00, $d, $m - 1, $y - 1900) -
+POSIX::mktime(00, 00, 00, 01, 00, 100)) / $secondstodays);
}
#Creates version resource file
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 603245] Review Request: python-zmq - Software library for fast, message-based 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=603245 --- Comment #7 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-08-05 00:46:17 EDT --- koji build failed => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2380709 -- Configure 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 597755] Review Request: openmolar - Open Source Dental Practice Management 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=597755 --- Comment #11 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-08-05 00:34:00 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 588194] Review Request: quickly - Command line tools to ease the creation of a new project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=588194 --- Comment #10 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-08-05 00:34:29 EDT --- ping any progress here -- Configure 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 592670] Review Request: mongoose - An easy-to-use self-sufficient web server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592670 Rafael Aquini changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #33 from Rafael Aquini 2010-08-04 23:45:17 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: mongoose New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: aquini -- Configure 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 612384] Review Request: teal - Verification utility and connection library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612384 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System 2010-08-04 23:12:03 EDT --- teal-1_40b-4.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/teal-1_40b-4.fc14 -- Configure 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 612384] Review Request: teal - Verification utility and connection library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612384 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System 2010-08-04 23:11:58 EDT --- teal-1_40b-4.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/teal-1_40b-4.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 612384] Review Request: teal - Verification utility and connection library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612384 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System 2010-08-04 23:11:53 EDT --- teal-1_40b-4.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/teal-1_40b-4.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 612384] Review Request: teal - Verification utility and connection library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612384 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System 2010-08-04 23:11:44 EDT --- teal-1_40b-4.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/teal-1_40b-4.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 621242] Review Request: gyp - Generate Your Projects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=621242
--- Comment #2 from Akira TAGOH 2010-08-04 23:00:53 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Some notes:
>
> ! Unneeded macros
> - You can remove %python_sitearch definition because it is uses nowhere.
It was necessary to build on f12:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros
> * Release
>
> Release: 0.1.%{?revision:%{revision}svn}%{?dist}
>
> - Well, I guess you meant "0.1%{?revision:.%{revision}svn}%{?dist}"
You're right. fixed.
>
> * BuildRoot
> - BuildRoot tag is no longer needed on Fedora and EPEL6:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
fixed.
>
> * BR for python
> - Please specify python2 or python3. ref:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#BuildRequires
>
> - Build fails on F-12 without BR: python2-devel:
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2379955
Okay, fixed.
> * %{__python} setup.py install
> - Maybe there is only small difference, however I guess we usually
> add "--skip-build" to "python setup.py install".
Sure. updated with:
Spec URL: http://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/gyp/gyp.spec
SRPM URL:
http://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/gyp/gyp-0.1-0.2.839svn.fc12.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 619831] Review Request: ltl2ba - Fast translation from LTL formulas to Büchi automata
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619831 --- Comment #9 from David A. Wheeler 2010-08-04 21:45:32 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ltl2ba Short Description: Fast translation from LTL formulas to Buchi automata Owners: dwheeler mrader Branches: f12 f13 f14 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 619831] Review Request: ltl2ba - Fast translation from LTL formulas to Büchi automata
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619831 David A. Wheeler 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 619831] Review Request: ltl2ba - Fast translation from LTL formulas to Büchi automata
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619831 --- Comment #8 from David A. Wheeler 2010-08-04 21:40:00 EDT --- Great! Thanks for the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 621416] Review Request: libgeotiff -- GeoTIFF format library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=621416 Kevin Kofler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org --- Comment #1 from Kevin Kofler 2010-08-04 21:12:20 EDT --- This is not a complete review, but "MIT, partially public domain (see LICENSE)" is not a valid License tag. It should be "MIT and Public Domain", or even just "MIT" as that's what the license effectively is anyway (Public Domain stuff can be reused under any license). (Please also verify that the code claimed "Public Domain" is really placed in the public domain. I've seen people claiming "This is public domain software" and then listing a bunch of conditions on use or distribution, contradicting their claim. Truly Public Domain software cannot impose any such conditions.) -- Configure 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 621415] 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=621415 Volker Fröhlich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||INSUFFICIENT_DATA --- Comment #1 from Volker Fröhlich 2010-08-04 21:02:18 EDT --- Bad entry. Please see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=621416 -- Configure 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 621415] 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=621415 Summary: Review Request: - Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: volke...@gmx.at QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://geofrogger.net/review/libgeotiff.spec SRPM URL: http://geofrogger.net/review/libgeotiff-1.3.0-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: GeoTIFF represents an effort by over 160 different remote sensing, GIS, cartographic, and surveying related companies and organizations to establish a TIFF based interchange format for georeferenced raster imagery. This is a request for a re-review. The package was left untouched for more than 3 months. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers#Claiming_Ownership_of_an_Orphaned_Package_Procedure -- Configure 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 621416] New: Review Request: libgeotiff -- GeoTIFF format 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: libgeotiff -- GeoTIFF format library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=621416 Summary: Review Request: libgeotiff -- GeoTIFF format library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: volke...@gmx.at QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://geofrogger.net/review/libgeotiff.spec SRPM URL: http://geofrogger.net/review/libgeotiff-1.3.0-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: GeoTIFF represents an effort by over 160 different remote sensing, GIS, cartographic, and surveying related companies and organizations to establish a TIFF based interchange format for georeferenced raster imagery. This is a request for a re-review. The package was left untouched for more than 3 months. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers#Claiming_Ownership_of_an_Orphaned_Package_Procedure -- Configure 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 #20 from Fedora Update System 2010-08-04 19:54:20 EDT --- minitunes-0.1.1-3.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/minitunes-0.1.1-3.fc14 -- Configure 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 #18 from Fedora Update System 2010-08-04 19:50:40 EDT --- minitunes-0.1.1-3.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/minitunes-0.1.1-3.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 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 #19 from Fedora Update System 2010-08-04 19:54:14 EDT --- minitunes-0.1.1-3.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/minitunes-0.1.1-3.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 608069] Review Request: tango - standard library for D language of d1 specification
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608069 --- Comment #53 from MERCIER Jonathan 2010-08-04 19:27:07 EDT --- the review is done? -- Configure 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] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610842 Bug 610842 depends on bug 610839, which changed state. Bug 610839 Summary: problems with include directory location of gdk-pixbuf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610839 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WORKSFORME -- Configure 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 516284] Review Request: mod_auth_cas - Apache 2.0/2.2 compliant module that supports the CASv1 and CASv2 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=516284 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||mod_auth_cas-1.0.8.1-2.el4 Resolution||ERRATA -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 516284] Review Request: mod_auth_cas - Apache 2.0/2.2 compliant module that supports the CASv1 and CASv2 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=516284 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System 2010-08-04 19:03:10 EDT --- mod_auth_cas-1.0.8.1-2.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 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 583643] Review Request: tigase-xmltools - Tigase XML Tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=583643 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2010-08-04 19:04:49 EDT --- tigase-xmltools-3.3.4-3.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 616357] Review Request: spamassassin-FuzzyOcr - Spamassassin plugin to identify image spam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=616357 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System 2010-08-04 19:03:02 EDT --- spamassassin-FuzzyOcr-3.6.0-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update spamassassin-FuzzyOcr'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spamassassin-FuzzyOcr-3.6.0-3.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 583643] Review Request: tigase-xmltools - Tigase XML Tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=583643 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||tigase-xmltools-3.3.4-3.el5 Resolution||ERRATA -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 516284] Review Request: mod_auth_cas - Apache 2.0/2.2 compliant module that supports the CASv1 and CASv2 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=516284 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System 2010-08-04 19:05:13 EDT --- mod_auth_cas-1.0.8.1-2.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 516284] Review Request: mod_auth_cas - Apache 2.0/2.2 compliant module that supports the CASv1 and CASv2 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=516284 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|mod_auth_cas-1.0.8.1-2.el4 |mod_auth_cas-1.0.8.1-2.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 610073] Review Request: flyback - time machine for linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610073 Sascha Thomas Spreitzer changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #2 from Sascha Thomas Spreitzer 2010-08-04 18:53:48 EDT --- David Woodhouse is sponsoring me, removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR blockage. -- Configure 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 620752] Review Request: update-ca-certificates - A tool to manage systemwide CA certificates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620752 --- Comment #7 from Sascha Thomas Spreitzer 2010-08-04 18:51:57 EDT --- Hyphens added, man page added, all uploaded. Requested a fedorahosted.org git repo and trac. :) https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2309 -- Configure 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 620752] Review Request: update-ca-certificates - A tool to manage systemwide CA certificates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620752 Sascha Thomas Spreitzer 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 469474] Review Request: sovix - A website revision 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=469474 Rafael Aquini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks||201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution||NOTABUG --- Comment #23 from Rafael Aquini 2010-08-04 18:46:33 EDT --- Vivek, Thanks for replying. I'm sorry to hear you don't have enough time to proceed with this work by now. Considering your reply, > Thanks for pinging me. I currently do not have the time to fix it and then > provide uploaded version. I can work on in a couple of months. In such a > situation, should I close this request with the resolution "DEFFERRED" ? I'm closing this bug just as described in Fedora's Policy for stalled package reviews -- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews Said so, I hope you can be able to reopen this bug (or a duplicate of it) in a near future, when you find out enough time to work on it! Cheers! -- Configure 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 620260] Rename Request: mutter-meego - MeeGo Netbook UX plugin for Mutter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620260 Peter Robinson 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 612384] Review Request: teal - Verification utility and connection library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612384 Ville Skyttä changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #436669|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #21 from Ville Skyttä 2010-08-04 17:17:09 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=436670) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=436670) Take #2, with fixed subject line -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 612384] Review Request: teal - Verification utility and connection library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612384 --- Comment #20 from Ville Skyttä 2010-08-04 17:15:50 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=436669) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=436669) Build with $RPM_OPT_FLAGS -- Configure 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 612384] Review Request: teal - Verification utility and connection library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612384 Ville Skyttä changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED CC||ville.sky...@iki.fi Blocks||496968(DebugInfo) Resolution|ERRATA | Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #19 from Ville Skyttä 2010-08-04 17:15:23 EDT --- For some reason there is no teal component in Bugzilla so I'm setting fedora-cvs to ? and reporting this bug here: This package is not built with $RPM_OPT_FLAGS, fix attached. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 619395] Review Request: mozc - Opensourced Google Japanese Input
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619395 --- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-08-04 15:49:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #1) > > First of all would you clarify the following? > > > > ./data/dictionary/README.txt > > Would you check under what license the dictionaries in mozc are > > actually licensed? > > Sure. will check it with upstream though, I don't see any issues combining > ipadic's license with BSD. Yes, the combination of BSD and mecab-ipadic is okay, I just want to make it clarified what license mozc's license is under. > > ./third_party/rx/v1_0rc2/README > > - This is under ASL 2.0. > > ! By the way, there are two third-party products included in mozc > > tarball (gyp, rx). Generally using bundled libraries is discouraged > > on Fedora and it is recommended to seperate such bundled libraries > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Bundling_of_multiple_projects > > Would you create seperated review request for these (if these > > are really needed)? > > I've submitted a package review for gyp though, there are no upstream for rx > anymore. apparently it may be not supposed to be shipped live for library and > a > trivial code though, can't we just have a comment about the license for rx in > the spec file? gyp taken. I guess rx can be shipped in current style (however the license tag of mozc needs fixing, after clarifying dictionary's 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 618137] Review Request: python-TraitsBackendWX - WxPython backend for Traits and TraitsGUI (Pyface)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618137 Howard Ning changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 617632] Review Request: openstack-swift - OpenStack Object Storage (swift)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617632
Ian Weller changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #11 from Ian Weller 2010-08-04 15:42:37 EDT ---
[ OK ] specfiles match:
4ee0f99434806215b64d2967eb9e4407 openstack-swift.spec
4ee0f99434806215b64d2967eb9e4407 openstack-swift.spec.1
[ OK ] source files match upstream:
6937c520d5db340bae8a63944e84174f swift-1.0.2.tar.gz
6937c520d5db340bae8a63944e84174f swift-1.0.2.tar.gz.1
[ OK ] package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
[FAILED] spec is properly named, cleanly written, and uses macros consistently.
You need to be using the new python_sitelib macro:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros
I feel like using the %{name} macro for the other source files would be
prudent. Descriptions for the subpackages should probably give a little bit
of
what they do. Neither of these are required, but it would be prudent.
On line 129, you can use dos2unix instead of sed to fix the
end-of-line-encoding warning (and I think that would be preferred).
[ OK ] dist tag is present.
[ OK ] build root is correct.
[ OK ] license field matches the actual license.
[ OK ] license is open source-compatible.
[ OK ] license text included in package.
[ OK ] latest version is being packaged.
[ OK ] BuildRequires are proper.
[ OK ] %clean is present.
[ OK ] package builds in mock.
You may have some issues with the Python 2.7 dependencies in F14/F15 when you
eventually build this.
[ OK ] package installs properly.
[ OK ] rpmlint is silent.
openstack-swift.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/swift swift
openstack-swift-account.noarch: W: non-standard-uid
/var/run/swift/account-server swift
openstack-swift-auth.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/swift/auth-server
swift
openstack-swift-container.noarch: W: non-standard-uid
/var/run/swift/container-server swift
openstack-swift-object.noarch: W: non-standard-uid
/var/run/swift/object-server swift
openstack-swift-proxy.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/swift/proxy-server
swift
[ianwel...@hovercraft REVIEW]$ rpmlint -I non-standard-uid
non-standard-uid:
A file in this package is owned by a non standard user. Standard users are:
adm, amanda, apache, arpwatch, avahi, beagleindex, bin, clamav, condor,
cyrus,
daemon, dbus, desktop, distcache, dovecot, exim, fax, frontpage, ftp, games,
gdm, gopher, haldaemon, halt, hsqldb, ident, jonas, ldap, lp, mail, mailman,
mailnull, majordomo, mysql, named, netdump, news, nfsnobody, nobody,
nocpulse,
nscd, nslcd, ntp, nut, operator, oprofile, ovirt, pegasus, piranha, pkiuser,
polkituser, postfix, postgres, prelude-manager, privoxy, puppet, pvm, qemu,
quagga, radiusd, radvd, root, rpc, rpcuser, rpm, sabayon, saned, shutdown,
smmsp, snortd, squid, sshd, sync, tcpdump, tomcat, tss, uucp, vcsa, vdsm,
webalizer, wnn, xfs.
This warning is ignorable.
[ OK ] final provides and requires are sane
[FAILED] %check is present and all tests pass:
This is on line 156:
# Remove tests
rm -fr %{buildroot}/%{python_sitelib}/test
Are these tests that can be run in %check?
[ OK ] owns the directories it creates.
[ OK ] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
[ OK ] no duplicates in %files.
[ OK ] file permissions are appropriate.
[ OK ] scriptlets match those on ScriptletSnippets page.
Line 180: I would have it say "OpenStack Swift Daemons".
For the condrestart lines, I would assume that that's OK for this package,
but
I would also want to check explicitly with upstream to see if that makes
sense.
[ OK ] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
I OK'd the dependency stuff knowing that this bug was blocking on an update to
python-eventlet, which is happening.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 609473] Review Request: kaya-board - A board game suite 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=609473
Mamoru Tasaka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-08-04
15:36:42 EDT ---
Some notes:
* %define -> %global
- Now we prefer to use %global instead of %define
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define
* Requires for rubygem related packages
- We prefer to use "rubygem(foo)" style for (Build)Requires.
ref: (this is for perl related packages, howver can be applied to rubygem
related packages)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#Perl_Requires_and_Provides
* Directory ownership issue
- "%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor" (and its subdirectories) are already owned by
hicolor-icon-theme and this package should not own these directories.
* Scriptlets
- For icons under %_datadir/icons/hicolor, please follow
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
* runtime error
--
$ kaya-board-qt
/usr/bin/kaya-board-qt:10:in `require': no such file to load --
/usr/share/kde4/apps/kaya/lib/kaya.rb (LoadError)
from /usr/bin/kaya-board-qt:10
--
--
Configure 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 619257] Review Request: rubygem-stomp - Ruby client for the Stomp messaging 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=619257 Michael Stahnke changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Michael Stahnke 2010-08-04 15:22:23 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: rubygem-stomp Short Description: Ruby client for the Stomp messaging protocol Owners: stahnma Branches: F-12 F-13 EL-5 EL-6 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 562226] Review Request: ccl - Free Common Lisp 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=562226 --- Comment #10 from Jerry James 2010-08-04 14:57:13 EDT --- I am still interested in the SIG. Sorry, between vacation and a heavy work load (mostly due to having been on vacation :-) I haven't had much time for my hobbies recently. I would like to get moving on that again, though. -- Configure 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 619257] Review Request: rubygem-stomp - Ruby client for the Stomp messaging 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=619257
Mamoru Tasaka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-08-04
14:53:12 EDT ---
For -3:
* %geminstdir
- Please change "%dir %{gemdir}/gems/%{gemname}-%{version}"
in %files to "%dir %{geminstdir}".
* Requires
- rubygem(rspec) seems needed only for development purpose
(Rakefile) and does not seem to be needed for runtime
(in .gemspec file "rspec" file is marked as s.add_development_dependency)
Please fix above when importing this into Fedora VCS.
---
This package (rubygem-stomp) is APPROVED by mtasaka
---
--
Configure 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 621242] Review Request: gyp - Generate Your Projects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=621242
Mamoru Tasaka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Blocks||619395
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-08-04
14:34:36 EDT ---
Some notes:
! Unneeded macros
- You can remove %python_sitearch definition because it is uses nowhere.
* Release
Release: 0.1.%{?revision:%{revision}svn}%{?dist}
- Well, I guess you meant "0.1%{?revision:.%{revision}svn}%{?dist}"
* BuildRoot
- BuildRoot tag is no longer needed on Fedora and EPEL6:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
* BR for python
- Please specify python2 or python3. ref:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#BuildRequires
- Build fails on F-12 without BR: python2-devel:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2379955
* %{__python} setup.py install
- Maybe there is only small difference, however I guess we usually
add "--skip-build" to "python setup.py install".
--
Configure 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 619395] Review Request: mozc - Opensourced Google Japanese Input
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619395 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||621242 -- Configure 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 619257] Review Request: rubygem-stomp - Ruby client for the Stomp messaging 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=619257 --- Comment #4 from Michael Stahnke 2010-08-04 14:17:51 EDT --- http://stahnma.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-stomp.spec http://stahnma.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-stomp-1.1.6-3.fc14.src.rpm - Fixed the BR - BR Rake is now added. - Set a %defattr and removed %doc tag for files in -doc packge - Moved Main license files back to original 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 226457] Merge Review: system-config-httpd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226457 --- Comment #4 from Phil Knirsch 2010-08-04 14:05:33 EDT --- Hi Parag. Finally got around to do the changes. Update srpm can be found here: http://pknirsch.fedorapeople.org/src/system-config-httpd-1.5.3-1.el6.src.rpm I also fixed the URL and repo link as hg.fedoraproject.org seems to have disappeared. Additionally i switched from using libxslt-python to python-lxml for the XSLT processing for the output. Thanks again for doing the review! Regards, Phil -- 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 583531] Review Request: mozilla-firetray - A system tray addon for mozilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=583531 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System 2010-08-04 14:02:20 EDT --- mozilla-firetray-0.2.8-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mozilla-firetray-0.2.8-1.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 583531] Review Request: mozilla-firetray - A system tray addon for mozilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=583531 --- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System 2010-08-04 14:02:32 EDT --- mozilla-firetray-0.2.8-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mozilla-firetray-0.2.8-1.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 583531] Review Request: mozilla-firetray - A system tray addon for mozilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=583531 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System 2010-08-04 14:02:22 EDT --- mozilla-firetray-0.2.8-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mozilla-firetray-0.2.8-1.fc14 -- Configure 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 617592] Review Request: libaccounts-qt - Library for handling the account 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=617592 --- Comment #9 from Helio Chissini de Castro 2010-08-04 13:52:10 EDT --- Regarding the Harmattan/Meego x Upstream qmf, i already had some patches to upstream and exchanged a few mails with Nokia guys about this. The position is not change current meego version and in near future pass to upstream, so we should go with upstream version. Minor patches, like enable convenient headers, etc. Regarding the F14, would not be wise having everyone using current Meego and get F14 launched with old version, so people start to bug everyone about backport from day 1 of F14 release. So, i'm fine if you really want to keep old version, i just think that will be a little upsetting for users interested in use F14. Btw, i work for Collabora in a Harmattan project for Nokia, so i have direct contact with all teams there and even sometimes go to Helsinki offices, so this helps when some info is needed []'s -- Configure 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 617797] Review Request: ranger - A flexible console file 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=617797 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 620752] Review Request: update-ca-certificates - A tool to manage systemwide CA certificates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620752
--- Comment #6 from David Woodhouse 2010-08-04 13:38:26
EDT ---
Two items in the review guidelines needs review. First, the rpmlint output:
update-ca-certificates.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) systemwide ->
system wide, system-wide, systematize
update-ca-certificates.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systemwide
-> system wide, system-wide, systematize
update-ca-certificates.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) systemwide ->
system wide, system-wide, systematize
update-ca-certificates.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
systemwide -> system wide, system-wide, systematize
update-ca-certificates.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
update-ca-certificates
Add the hyphen it wants, and let's see if we can put together a simple man
page.
Also, we should provide a proper upstream for the project, and a place to put
release tarballs. Do you have the facility for that already? If not, you can
mail me a SSH public key (make sure to use a passphrase) and I can give you an
account on {ftp,git}.infradead.org.
--
Configure 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 621194] Review Request: python-webdav-library - Object-oriented Python WebDAV client-side library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=621194 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review |Review Request: |Request:python-webdav-libra |python-webdav-library - |ry - Object-oriented Python |Object-oriented Python |WebDAV client-side library |WebDAV client-side 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 617797] Review Request: ranger - A flexible console file 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=617797 --- Comment #11 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-08-04 13:41:05 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 620826] Review Request: python-icalendar - Parser/generator of iCalendar files following the RFC 2445
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620826 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Spura 2010-08-04 13:34:50 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > Thanks for your comments. > > (In reply to comment #1) > > Just some comments (I'm no sponsor anyway): > > I don't need a sponsor, I have 20+ packages in Fedora already, but mostly java > and this was my first python package from scratch. I guess I confused you when > I said "first python package" :-) Removing FE_NEEDSPONSOR. Most new contributers forget blocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR, so as soon as I read "new package", I block it everywhere. The "python" in the middle didn't help her much ;) > > - You could add a %check section for running the testsuite. > > checks fail in mock so I didn't put them in. I "fixed" this by adding > commented > out check run with explanation why it was disabled. Huh? How is it failing? Maybe just a missing BR? It works here with rpmbuild: + /usr/bin/python test.py test.py:80: DeprecationWarning: the sets module is deprecated from sets import Set Imported 1 modules in 0.278s -- Ran 36 tests in 0.124s OK -> scratch build F15: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2379894 Failed example: g Expected: (37.3860128, -122.082932) Got: (37.386013, -122.082932) There it's failing because python 2.7 seems to round a bit different, than python 2.6 did (and the tests were written for python 2.6). Maybe the next version will fix the doctests, because the author will switch to python 2.7 too... (But here with python-2.6.4-27.fc13.x86_64 it's working for me.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 619257] Review Request: rubygem-stomp - Ruby client for the Stomp messaging 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=619257
--- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-08-04
13:31:05 EDT ---
For -2:
* BR style
- Please unify to "BuildRequires: rubygem(rspec)" style.
* BR
- "BR: rubygem(rake)" is needed (otherwise rake spec cannot
be executed)
* %defattr
- Please set %defattr on -doc subpackage.
! By the way I usually think that %doc attribute on -doc subpackage
is redundant because its rpm name already indicates that this rpm
is for documentation.
* Documentation
- License related files should be in main package.
Please move the following files to main.
--
%{geminstdir}/CHANGELOG.rdoc
%{geminstdir}/LICENSE
%{geminstdir}/README.rdoc
--
--
Configure 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 227064] Review Request: jakarta-commons-io-1.2-2jpp - Commons IO Package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227064 Ruediger Landmann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||r.landm...@redhat.com Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Ruediger Landmann 2010-08-04 13:25:56 EDT --- Package Change Request === Package Name: jakarta-commons-io New Branches: el5 Owners: rlandmann InitialCC: I have discussed this change with Permaine Cheung, the package owner, and she is happy for me to maintain this branch. -- 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 619257] Review Request: rubygem-stomp - Ruby client for the Stomp messaging 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=619257 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 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 620752] Review Request: update-ca-certificates - A tool to manage systemwide CA certificates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620752 Sascha Thomas Spreitzer changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |update-ca-certificates - A |update-ca-certificates - A |tool to index CA|tool to manage systemwide |certificates|CA certificates -- Configure 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 620752] Review Request: update-ca-certificates - A tool to index CA certificates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620752 --- Comment #5 from Sascha Thomas Spreitzer 2010-08-04 13:02:47 EDT --- Here we go, version 0.2-2; Spec URL: http://sspreitzer.fedorapeople.org/update-ca-certificates/update-ca-certificates.spec SRPM URL: http://sspreitzer.fedorapeople.org/update-ca-certificates/update-ca-certificates-0.2-2.fc13.src.rpm Description: A tool to manage systemwide CA certificates - Source of script: http://sspreitzer.fedorapeople.org/update-ca-certificates/update-ca-certificates-0.2/update-ca-certificates - >From Changelog: * Wed Aug 04 2010 Sascha Thomas Spreitzer 0.2-2 - fixed relative path issue, thanks to Sandro "red" Mathys - add license file and changed license shorttag in spec to reflect GPLv2+ - corrected typos, enhanced description, added verbosity -- Configure 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 619518] Review Request: aajohan-comfortaa-fonts - Modern style true type font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619518 --- Comment #26 from Luya Tshimbalanga 2010-08-04 12:46:28 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: aajohan-comfortaa-fonts Short Description: Modern style true type font Owners: luya Branches: f12 f13 f14 el6 InitialCC: maxamillion tk009 font-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 620898] Review Request: nxtrc - A program to interact with LEGO NXT via BlueTooth
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620898 Damian Wrobel 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 621194] Review Request:python-webdav-library - Object-oriented Python WebDAV client-side library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=621194 Stanislav Ochotnicky changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-08-04 12:17:22 EDT --- Thanks for the review. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: python-webdav-library Short Description: Object-oriented Python WebDAV client-side library Owners: sochotni Branches: devel f14 f13 f12 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 618451] Review Request: gdb-heap - Extensions to gdb for debugging dynamic memory allocation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618451
--- Comment #17 from Dave Malcolm 2010-08-04 12:13:34 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #16)
Thanks.
> The comment at the top is no longer valid, but there is still no reason to
> create debuginfo here (it would be empty), as this is a architecture
> indepedent
> payload in an arch specific package (to match glibc). It would be nice to
> update that comment to reflect the actual reason for disabling debuginfo.
Fixed
>
> Also, the license tag is still invalid (should be LGPLv2+ and Python). Plus,
> you don't include copies of the License text. Given that you're upstream on
> this, you must do this (and package them as %doc). You should also do a proper
> header attribution of LGPLv2+ in your source files (with the exception of the
> Python licensed file(s), of course), like this:
Fixed: I've added license files to the upstream tarball and to %doc, and added
license headers (see
http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=gdb-heap.git;a=commitdiff;h=08b5cf99c649d1e3c129b4350d67075f00fc5dd3
)
(snip)
> Last, rpmlint says:
>
> gdb-heap.src:47: W: macro-in-comment %{_isa}
> gdb-heap.src:47: W: macro-in-comment %{glibc_version}
Fixed: I removed/rewrote that comment
(snip)
Updated specfile:
http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/python-packaging/gdb-heap.spec
Updated SRPM:
http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/python-packaging/gdb-heap-0.4-1.fc12.src.rpm
Changes in specfile:
http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/python-packaging/gdb-heap-from-0.3-1-to-0.4-1.diff
--
Configure 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612581 --- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-08-04 12:02:48 EDT --- ...but first you'll have to actually upload that 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 612998] Review Request: PyPAM - PAM bindings for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612998
--- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-08-04
11:54:19 EDT ---
NEEDSWORK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
PyPAM.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/PAMmodule.so PAMmodule.so()(64bit)
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
You will need to filter provides:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering#Preventing_files.2Fdirectories_from_being_scanned_for_provides_.28pre-scan_filtering.29
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. .
NEEDSWORK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
* use %{__python} in %build section
* do not use INSTALLED_FILES, it is explicitly discouraged in Python
packaging guidelines (remember to use python_sitearch for *so module)
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Byte_compiling
* source tarball contains rpms and other binary files in dist/ and
build/ subdirs. Remove these directories in %prep
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: 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.
OK: All independent sub-packages have License of their own (if it exists)
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: 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.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
NEEDSWORK: 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.
You put %{__python} in BRs. There is also BR on
python-devel. Packaging guidelines recommend either python2-devel or
python3-devel (both in case the package supports it). No need for
explicit %{__python} BR.
NA: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
NA: 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.
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
NA: 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.
OK: 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.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
NA: 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).
NA: 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.
NA: Header files must be in a -devel package.
NA: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
NA: 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.
NA: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
OK: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
NA: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a
[Bug 618137] Review Request: python-TraitsBackendWX - WxPython backend for Traits and TraitsGUI (Pyface)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618137
Howard Ning changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrlhwlibe...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Howard Ning 2010-08-04 11:44:50
EDT ---
Formal review:
+:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing ?: unknown
MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
python-TraitsBackendWX.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
python-TraitsBackendWX.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
python-TraitsBackendWX.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag
python-TraitsBackendWX.spec: W: no-%clean-section
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
python-TraitsBackendWX.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backend -> backed,
backbend, back end
python-TraitsBackendWX.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wxPython ->
pythoness, Python, python
python-TraitsBackendWX.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wx -> ex,
w, x
python-TraitsBackendWX.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
python-TraitsBackendWX.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
python-TraitsBackendWX.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
python-TraitsBackendWX.src: W: no-%clean-section
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
python-TraitsBackendWX.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backend ->
backed, backbend, back end
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
0776528c8205e2d90975bce7012c371d TraitsBackendWX-3.4.0.tar.gz
0776528c8205e2d90975bce7012c371d TraitsBackendWX-3.4.0.tar.gz
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro.
[+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
[+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review
[-] 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.
Own this directory?
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/enthought/
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
[+] MUST: Packa
[Bug 612998] Review Request: PyPAM - PAM bindings for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612998 Stanislav Ochotnicky changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||socho...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|socho...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-08-04 11:24:39 EDT --- I'll take the review -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612581 Stanislav Ochotnicky changed: What|Removed |Added CC||socho...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|socho...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-08-04 11:25:05 EDT --- I can review the 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 620826] Review Request: python-icalendar - Parser/generator of iCalendar files following the RFC 2445
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620826 Miroslav Suchý changed: What|Removed |Added 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612581 Stanislav Ochotnicky 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 554243] Review Request: moovida - Media Center
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=554243 --- Comment #39 from Hans de Goede 2010-08-04 11:19:22 EDT --- Full review: Good: - rpmlint checks return: moovida.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/moovida.1.gz 165: warning: numeric expression expected (got `U') moovida.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elisa moovida-base.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/elisa/core/launcher.py 0644L /usr/bin/python moovida-base.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/elisa/core/tests/test_launcher.py 0644L /usr/bin/python 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. You could fix the 1st one by adding a symlink to the manpage for elisa and you could fix the last 2 by making these files executable (or removing the shebang), but I consider neither of these 3 to be blockers. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPLv3) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - 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 - .desktop file installed for GUI parts 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 621194] Review Request:python-webdav-library - Object-oriented Python WebDAV client-side library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=621194
Miroslav Suchý changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Miroslav Suchý 2010-08-04 11:15:44 EDT
---
==
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 including the Python specific items
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
tested in: devel/koji
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2379632
[x] Rpmlint output:
python-webdav-library.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US httplib
-> HTTP, halibut, stoplight
python-webdav-library.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US davlib ->
Davis, David, davit
python-webdav-library.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US versioning
-> version, versifying, versification
python-webdav-library.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US httplib
-> HTTP, halibut, stoplight
python-webdav-library.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US davlib ->
Davis, David, davit
python-webdav-library.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
versioning -> version, versifying, versification
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: ASL 2.0 and Python and Public Domain
[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.
source package do not have license text
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
304f471910bc61b291e37c5676b42a01425cb20e3f8a88d1e7e5927abf3f672a
Python_WebDAV_Library-0.2.0.zip
304f471910bc61b291e37c5676b42a01425cb20e3f8a88d1e7e5927abf3f672a
/home/msuchy/rpmbuild/SOURCES/Python_WebDAV_Library-0.2.0.zip
[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 has a %clean section, which contains rm -fR $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[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.
[-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
0.2.0
[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.
[-] %check is present and the tests pass
*** APPROVED ***
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on t
[Bug 619395] Review Request: mozc - Opensourced Google Japanese Input
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619395 --- Comment #3 from Akira TAGOH 2010-08-04 11:16:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > First of all would you clarify the following? > > ./data/dictionary/README.txt > - Well, mozc says the overall license is BSD, however > - this file (./data/dictionary/README.txt) says that > the volaburaly set is taken from ipadic, and > the license of ipadic is not the same as BSD. > ! Fedora admits that the license of ipadic is free, > however is different from BSD at least in that the > compatibility with GPL is currently unclear: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing > > - Also some other words seems added to the dictionary in the > tarball. Maybe newly added words are licensed under BSD, > however it seems unclear to me. > > Would you check under what license the dictionaries in mozc are > actually licensed? Sure. will check it with upstream though, I don't see any issues combining ipadic's license with BSD. > ./third_party/rx/v1_0rc2/README > - This is under ASL 2.0. > ! By the way, there are two third-party products included in mozc > tarball (gyp, rx). Generally using bundled libraries is discouraged > on Fedora and it is recommended to seperate such bundled libraries > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Bundling_of_multiple_projects > Would you create seperated review request for these (if these > are really needed)? I've submitted a package review for gyp though, there are no upstream for rx anymore. apparently it may be not supposed to be shipped live for library and a trivial code though, can't we just have a comment about the license for rx in the spec file? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617592] Review Request: libaccounts-qt - Library for handling the account 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=617592 --- Comment #8 from Chen Lei 2010-08-04 11:17:58 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > I have 0.31 ready to submit, but depends on new libaccounts-glib i submitted > yesterday. > Chen, do you minf if i take the chain depends like libaccounts-glib, > libaccounts-qt, qmf and qt-mobility ? > []'s Would mind to only upgrade the latest version to rawhide(Fedora 15)? I intend to package old version from meego 1.1 for F14. Also, I suggest you only update qt-mobility 1.1 tp for F15 temporarily. >From the meego release plan, it seems we should focus on packaging meego 1.1 packages for F14, and meego 1.2 ones for F15 in order to provide a complete meego MTF UX in Fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 621242] New: Review Request: gyp - Generate Your Projects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: gyp - Generate Your Projects https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=621242 Summary: Review Request: gyp - Generate Your Projects Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ta...@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://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/gyp/gyp.spec SRPM URL: http://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/gyp/gyp-0.1-0.1.839svn.fc12.src.rpm Description: GYP is a tool to generates native Visual Studio, Xcode and SCons and/or make build files from a platform-independent input format. Its syntax is a universal cross-platform build representation that still allows sufficient per-platform flexibility to accommodate irreconcilable differences. -- Configure 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 617592] Review Request: libaccounts-qt - Library for handling the account 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=617592 --- Comment #7 from Chen Lei 2010-08-04 11:10:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > I have 0.31 ready to submit, but depends on new libaccounts-glib i submitted > yesterday. > Chen, do you minf if i take the chain depends like libaccounts-glib, > libaccounts-qt, qmf and qt-mobility ? > []'s Feel to add yourself as comaintainer to all my packages listed in pkgdb[1]. For qmf, we should keep the name messagingframework. Fedora already have a package named qmf, try "yum info qmf", and meego 1.1 still uses messagingframework as rpm name. If you can help to package meego packages, it'll be great. It seems meego use a forked messagingframework, I wonder if we should use this forked version instead of the original version maintained by Nokia, what's your opinion? [1]https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/packages/supercyper -- Configure 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 576757] Review Request: moovida-plugins-good - Media Center
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576757 Hans de Goede 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 620738] Review Request: snoopy - A preload library to send shell commands to syslog
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620738 --- Comment #8 from Darryl L. Pierce 2010-08-04 11:07:55 EDT --- If the change is solely in where the library is installed, then I'm okay with 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 554243] Review Request: moovida - Media Center
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=554243 Hans de Goede changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||hdego...@redhat.com Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|hdego...@redhat.com --- Comment #38 from Hans de Goede 2010-08-04 11:04:22 EDT --- Hi, Sorry for the slow response I've been kept very busy by my dayjob and other things, also I'm going on a short vacation tomorrow, returing Tue Aug 10th, so my next reply will be a bit slow too. (In reply to comment #37) > > Yep, I think go ahead with getting 1.x into Fedora. I agree 2.x does not seem to be heading in a direction which results in a useful home theater / multimedia center UI for Linux in anyway. As I offered in the -bad and -good plugins reviews I'll review this and when that is done sponsor you. I hope to finish reviewing atleast the base package today before my short vacation. -- Configure 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 576757] Review Request: moovida-plugins-good - Media Center
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576757 Hans de Goede changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|hdego...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Hans de Goede 2010-08-04 11:04:43 EDT --- As I offered in the -bad and -good plugins reviews I'll review this and when that is done sponsor you. I hope to finish reviewing at least the base package today before my short vacation. -- Configure 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 576758] Review Request: moovida-plugins-bad - Media Center
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576758 Hans de Goede 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 576758] Review Request: moovida-plugins-bad - Media Center
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576758 Hans de Goede changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|hdego...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Hans de Goede 2010-08-04 11:04:56 EDT --- As I offered in the -bad and -good plugins reviews I'll review this and when that is done sponsor you. I hope to finish reviewing at least the base package today before my short vacation. -- Configure 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 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 --- Comment #63 from Paul Howarth 2010-08-04 10:58:13 EDT --- I think the status quo is OK, no need to change the requires, given that the shipped Sendmail-sasl2.conf is for saslauthd. Perhaps adding a README.auth with a quick howto (which packages to install, what to configure) for a few common auth scenarios would be better than adding a bunch of requires? -- 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 617592] Review Request: libaccounts-qt - Library for handling the account 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=617592 --- Comment #6 from Helio Chissini de Castro 2010-08-04 10:58:16 EDT --- I have 0.31 ready to submit, but depends on new libaccounts-glib i submitted yesterday. Chen, do you minf if i take the chain depends like libaccounts-glib, libaccounts-qt, qmf and qt-mobility ? []'s -- Configure 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 620862] Review Request: python-newt_syrup - Newt Syrup is an app framework built on top of Newt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620862 --- Comment #9 from Darryl L. Pierce 2010-08-04 10:51:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > > The initial spec file was one generated by the python-setuptools with a few > > changes from me. > > Ok, I would recommend using a python package already in Fedora as > template/example that would will save you some work. > > You moved the src/ dir to . in the -2 release, I wonder if you really want to > change src/ to newt_syrup/, then things will work as expected. Thanks for the suggestion, it'll hopefully save me some frustration with this. I took python-mwlib and used it as a guide and I think everything's good now. SPEC: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/python-newt_syrup.spec SRPM: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/python-newt_syrup-0.1.0-4.fc13.src.rpm SBLD: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2379575 -- Configure 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 621194] Review Request:python-webdav-library - Object-oriented Python WebDAV client-side library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=621194 Miroslav Suchý changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msu...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|msu...@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 620826] Review Request: python-icalendar - Parser/generator of iCalendar files following the RFC 2445
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620826 Miroslav Suchý changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msu...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|msu...@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 620738] Review Request: snoopy - A preload library to send shell commands to syslog
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620738 --- Comment #7 from Steve Traylen 2010-08-04 10:47:03 EDT --- Hi Darryl, Thanks for the review. Thinking about this package, I think that given this is override via preload to glibc which is of course in /lib64 then I think this preload should also be in /lib64 rather than /usr/lib64. Not a good change to make immediately after review hence this comment in case you have any comment. -- Configure 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 617592] Review Request: libaccounts-qt - Library for handling the account 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=617592
--- Comment #5 from Martin Gieseking 2010-08-04
10:47:16 EDT ---
OK, thanks for the info. Since the KDE-SIG approved to place KDE-/Qt-related
.qch and html files in unversioned doc directories, it's probably OK to do the
same with the API docs of libaccounts-qt. However, I suggest to move the API
docs from %{_docdir}/accounts-qt to %{_docdir}/%{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 607016] Review Request: goobook - Abook-style interface for google contacts for mutt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607016 --- Comment #7 from Howard Ning 2010-08-04 10:43:39 EDT --- Clean up the spec file. http://helloworld1.fedorapeople.org/goobook.spec http://helloworld1.fedorapeople.org/goobook-1.3-2.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 607015] Review Request: hcs_utils - A collection of useful python snippets for hcs's projects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607015 --- Comment #4 from Howard Ning 2010-08-04 10:44:33 EDT --- Change name to python-hcs_utils http://helloworld1.fedorapeople.org/python-hcs_utils.spec http://helloworld1.fedorapeople.org/python-hcs_utils-1.1.1-2.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 621037] Review Request: perl-MooseX-MultiMethods - Multi Method Dispatch based on Moose type constraints
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=621037 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 621037] Review Request: perl-MooseX-MultiMethods - Multi Method Dispatch based on Moose type constraints
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=621037 --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell 2010-08-04 10:38:52 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-MooseX-MultiMethods Short Description: Multi Method Dispatch based on Moose type constraints Owners: iarnell Branches: F-13 F-14 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 620738] Review Request: snoopy - A preload library to send shell commands to syslog
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620738 Steve Traylen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Steve Traylen 2010-08-04 10:35:22 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: snoopy Short Description: A preload library to send shell commands to syslog Owners: stevetraylen Branches: f13 f14 el4 el5 el6 -- Configure 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
