[Bug 632970] Review Request: rec-applet - An audio recording applet for the GNOME-desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=632970 --- Comment #4 from Cédric OLIVIER cedric.oliv...@free.fr 2010-10-24 04:13:17 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 632970] Review Request: rec-applet - An audio recording applet for the GNOME-desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=632970 --- Comment #6 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com 2010-10-24 08:12:21 EDT --- I forgot this: you should update your package to the latest bzr snapshot, a lot of new translations are available, as well as some minor bug fixes. -- Configure 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 632970] Review Request: rec-applet - An audio recording applet for the GNOME-desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=632970
--- Comment #5 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com 2010-10-24
08:11:36 EDT ---
You can remove the following useless BuildRequires:
- glib2-devel (already required by gtk2-devel)
- gtk2-devel (already required by gnome-media-devel)
- gstreamer-devel (already required by gstreamer-plugins-base-devel)
But you must add the following Requires:
- hicolor-icon-theme (to own %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/)
- libbonobo (to own %{_libdir}/bonobo/servers/).
Be careful by the way to unowned directories: neither %{_datadir}/%{name}/ nor
%{_datadir}/pixmaps/%{name}/ are owned by your package. Please correct your
%files section as following:
%files -f %{name}.lang
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%{_bindir}/%{name}
%{_datadir}/%{name}/
%{_datadir}/pixmaps/%{name}/
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/%{name}.png
%{_libdir}/bonobo/servers/%{name}.server
Please remove all the references to josm in the rec-applet-generate-tarball.sh
script. Moreover, you should be able to choose the revision you want to
download using the script (with a given parameter corresponding to revision),
and mention it in the name of the generated source archive; otherwise the
script is in fact useless and you'd better indicate in the comments how th grab
the archive source: for example (here updated to the latest snapshot):
%global bzr_revision 24
%global bzr_version 20101011
Name: rec-applet
Version:0
Release:0.3.%{bzr_version}bzr%{?dist}
[...]
# The source for this package was pulled from upstream's vcs. Use the
# following commands to generate the tarball:
# bzr export -r %{bzr_revision} rec-applet-%{bzr_version}bzr.tar.bz2
lp:rec-applet
Source0: %{name}-%{bzr_version}bzr.tar.bz2
Note that using the given bzr command in the comments, you'll get automatically
a .tar.bz2 source archive, which should be better compressed than a .tar.gz
one. You can take example on this comment to write a _real_ script to grab the
sources.
--
Configure 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 537983] Review Request: python-visual - 3D Programming
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=537983
Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #33 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com 2010-10-24
09:26:31 EDT ---
Ok for the licensing. At last the review:
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
-OK, no warning for all the RPMs
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
-OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
-OK
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
-OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
-OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
-OK
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.
-OK
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
-OK
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
-OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
- OK, md5sum = 866f51f0c49b60086dbe3581f508d30b
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
-OK, tested on x86_64 with mock
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.
-N/A
MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
-OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
-N/A
MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
-N/A
MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
-N/A
MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
-N/A
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.
-OK
MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
-OK
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.
-OK
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
-OK
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
-OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
-OK
MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
-OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
-N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
-N/A
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.
-N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}.
-N/A
MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
-OK
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.
-N/A
MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
-OK
MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
-OK
This package is _at last_ 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 637511] Review Request: php-phpunit-PHP-CodeCoverage - PHP code coverage information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637511 Bug 637511 depends on bug 637517, which changed state. Bug 637517 Summary: Please update to 1.0.0 stable https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637517 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA Resolution||ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 645321] Review Request: python-orange - Orange data mining library 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=645321 --- Comment #2 from Howard Ning mrlhwlibe...@gmail.com 2010-10-24 11:19:11 EDT --- 2.0-0.3: fix the license issues: http://helloworld1.fedorapeople.org/python-orange.spec http://helloworld1.fedorapeople.org/python-orange-2.0-0.3.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615700] Review Request: ghc-gtksourceview2 - Haskell gtksourceview2 binding
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615700
Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com 2010-10-24
12:53:11 EDT ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i ghc-gtksourceview2-0.12.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm
ghc-gtksourceview2-devel-0.12.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm
ghc-gtksourceview2-prof-0.12.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm
ghc-gtksourceview2.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell - Gaskell,
Gaitskell, Skellum
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-gtksourceview2-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -
Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-gtksourceview2-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-gtksourceview2-devel
Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package
itself.
ghc-gtksourceview2-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
ghc-gtksourceview2-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/gtksourceview2-0.12.1/libHSgtksourceview2-0.12.1_p.a
A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If
you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a
development package.
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
License - OK
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Buildroot is ignored - present anyway. OK
%clean is ignored - present anyway. OK
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK, present in devel rpm
[+]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.
Yes, COPYING included in ghc-gtksourceview2-0.12.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm
[+]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. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
[~/ghc-gtksourceview2]$ md5sum gtksourceview2-0.12.1.tar.gz
27aaa1c4109b9ef9b60b3dbda60ea5d6 gtksourceview2-0.12.1.tar.gz
[~/Desktop]$ md5sum gtksourceview2-0.12.1.tar.gz
27aaa1c4109b9ef9b60b3dbda60ea5d6 Desktop/gtksourceview2-0.12.1.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on x86_64
[+]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.
[NA]MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly using the %find_lang macro
[NA]MUST: Packages stores shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[NA]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.
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[+]MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
API documentation in devel package
[+]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.
[NA]MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[NA]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)
[Bug 630509] Review Request: ghc-split - Combinator library for splitting lists
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630509 Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lakshminaras2...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lakshminaras2...@gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639098] Review Request: rubygem-gtk2 - Ruby binding of GTK+-2.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639098 --- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-10-24 15:06:50 EDT --- http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-gtk2/rubygem-gtk2-0.90.4-2.fc.src.rpm http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-gtk2/rubygem-gtk2.spec * Sun Oct 24 2010 Mamoru Taska mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp - 0.90.4-2 - 0.90.4 * Sun Oct 24 2010 Mamoru Taska mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp - 0.90.3-2 - 0.90.3 (still blocked by bug 637939) -- Configure 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 639636] Review Request: rubygem-poppler - Ruby binding of poppler-glib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639636 --- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-10-24 15:09:08 EDT --- http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-poppler/rubygem-poppler-0.90.4-2.fc.src.rpm http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-poppler/rubygem-poppler.spec * Sun Oct 24 2010 Mamoru Taska mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp - 0.90.4-2 - 0.90.4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639098] Review Request: rubygem-gtk2 - Ruby binding of GTK+-2.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639098 Bug 639098 depends on bug 637985, which changed state. Bug 637985 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-pango - Ruby binding of pango-1.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637985 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639098] Review Request: rubygem-gtk2 - Ruby binding of GTK+-2.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639098 Bug 639098 depends on bug 637904, which changed state. Bug 637904 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-atk - Ruby binding of ATK-1.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637904 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637904] Review Request: rubygem-atk - Ruby binding of ATK-1.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637904 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2010-10-24 15:07:19 --- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-10-24 15:07:19 EDT --- Closing as now available on 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 637985] Review Request: rubygem-pango - Ruby binding of pango-1.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637985 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2010-10-24 15:07:52 --- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-10-24 15:07:52 EDT --- Closing as now available on 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 637939] Review Request: rubygem-gdk_pixbuf2 - Ruby binding of GdkPixbuf-2.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637939 --- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-10-24 15:04:46 EDT --- http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-gdk_pixbuf2/rubygem-gdk_pixbuf2.spec http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-gdk_pixbuf2/rubygem-gdk_pixbuf2-0.90.4-2.fc.src.rpm * Sun Oct 24 2010 Mamoru Taska mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp - 0.90.4-2 - 0.90.4 * Sun Oct 24 2010 Mamoru Taska mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp - 0.90.3-2 - 0.90.3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 639638] Review Request: rubygem-rsvg2 - Ruby binding of librsvg-2.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639638 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||637939 -- Configure 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 637939] Review Request: rubygem-gdk_pixbuf2 - Ruby binding of GdkPixbuf-2.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637939 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||639638 -- Configure 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 639638] Review Request: rubygem-rsvg2 - Ruby binding of librsvg-2.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639638 --- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-10-24 15:13:02 EDT --- http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-rsvg2/rubygem-rsvg2.spec http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-rsvg2/rubygem-rsvg2-0.90.4-2.fc.src.rpm * Sun Oct 24 2010 Mamoru Taska mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp - 0.90.4-2 - 0.90.4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 646181] New: Review Request: rubygem-gio2 - Ruby binding of gio-2.0.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rubygem-gio2 - Ruby binding of gio-2.0.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646181 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-gio2 - Ruby binding of gio-2.0.x Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-gio2/rubygem-gio2.spec SRPM URL: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-gio2/rubygem-gio2-0.90.4-2.fc.src.rpm Description: Ruby/GIO2 is a Ruby binding of gio-2.0.x. scratch build for dist-rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2551501 -- Configure 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 593841] Review Request: wicd - Wireless and wired network connection 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=593841 --- Comment #49 from Reese drmck...@gmail.com 2010-10-24 23:52:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #46) Interesting. I'm using the latest version I packaged up and it works fine for me, but out of curiosity do either of you have SELinux enabled? I have a feeling that wicd's daemon may be hitting some SELinux walls when it tries to remember settings. The inability to remember hidden networks was not related to SElinux issues, as far as I could tell. (In reply to comment #48) It's working here as well, I'm only getting these selinux warnings. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596982 wicd has always worked and was able to connect to the forgotten hidden networks once the essid was provided. On the other hand, 1.6.2.1 remembers hidden networks. -- Configure 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 225773] Merge Review: f-spot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225773 --- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2010-10-25 01:13:10 EDT --- Created attachment 455392 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=455392 spec cleanup spec cleanup patch. Please don't commit this as it is. I have used Packaging guidelines to cleanup this package. Also saw some rpmlint errors f-spot.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib64/f-spot/f-spot.exe.config f-spot.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib64/f-spot/FSpot.Cms.dll.config f-spot.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib64/f-spot/Hyena.dll.config f-spot.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib64/f-spot/FSpot.Core.dll.config f-spot.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib64/f-spot/FSpot.Gui.dll.config f-spot.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib64/f-spot/FSpot.Utils.dll.config f-spot.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib64/f-spot/Hyena.Gui.dll.config Also, you need to add comment in spec for which part of code is in licenses given in license tag. Can maintainer please fix all above issues? -- 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
