[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673784

--- Comment #11 from Richard W.M. Jones  2011-01-31 11:36:31 
EST ---
OK, but I don't think crossdesktop-* is going to offend anyone's
sensibilities.  It reflects what we are doing: offering a cross
compiler that targets the most popular desktop systems out there
today (where "most popular" is measured by market share, and
"desktop" doesn't include embedded/mobile systems).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 674008] Review Request: openrave - Open Robotics Automation Virtual Environment

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674008

--- Comment #2 from Tim Niemueller  2011-01-31 11:35:21 EST 
---
Thanks for the useful comments! I'll use the flann package.

New SRPM:
http://fedorapeople.org/~timn/robotics/openrave-0.2.18-0.2.svn1975.fc14.src.rpm
Spec file is changed in-place. Patch has been updated to include a flann
system-wide installation check.

The collada-dom in the OpenRAVE tree is only a sub-set of collada-dom, and the
CMakeLists.txt explicitly states problems with system-wide installed versions.
It only uses the static library, so no shared object is installed that could
confuse other apps. I'll look into it for separate packaging.

The convexdecomposition library seems to be the one from
https://code.google.com/p/convexdecomposition. I'll look into it if it can be
packaged separately. Again, it is linked statically into OpenRAVE and should
therefore not cause confusion. OpenRAVE includes a Python wrapper.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 659679] Review Request: sigar - System Information Gatherer And Reporter

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=659679

Andrew Beekhof  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2011-01-31 11:39:41

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 663695] Review Request: mingw32-sigar - MinGW Windows sigar library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663695

Andrew Beekhof  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2011-01-31 11:41:09

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 646836] Review Request: rubygem-bundler - Library and utilities to manages a Ruby application's gem

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646836

--- Comment #23 from Jason Tibbitts  2011-01-31 11:45:24 EST 
---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 662301] Review Request: plotdrop - A minimal GNOME front-end to Gnuplot

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662301

--- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts  2011-01-31 11:45:42 EST 
---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 665995] Review Request: fmit - Free Music Instrument Tuner

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665995

--- Comment #25 from Jason Tibbitts  2011-01-31 11:48:48 EST 
---
There are two issues with your request:

1) It is too early to request f15 branches.
2) fmit already exists in the package database.

Are you requesting that the existing package be unretired?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 673026] Review Request: ukij-tuz-fonts - Uyghur Computer Science Association (UKIJ) Unicode fonts

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673026

--- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts  2011-01-31 11:50:23 EST 
---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673784

--- Comment #12 from Ralf Corsepius  2011-01-31 11:58:42 
EST ---
And how do you want to continue with binutils, gcc etc?

Consider packaging cross compilers from Fedora to non-native Fedora targets,
other Linuxes (RHEL4/5/6, openSUSE-11.2/11.3, ...), some "plain metal targets",
exotic embedded target or other *nix (e.g. *BSDs).

It's simply impractiable to build all of them from one "single unified
source-package" (not even MinGW32/MinGW64/MacOSX) 
=> cross-binutils/gcc packages don't even make less sense than a common base
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 668820] Review Request: rubygem-rdoc - RDoc produces HTML and command-line documentation for Ruby projects

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668820

--- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch  2011-01-31 12:01:50 EST 
---
* Please consider updating to the latest version (3.5.1 atm)

* MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
  - Please review the licensing. At appears that the package is GPLv2 and some
custom license, where some files are MIT (lib/rdoc/task.rb) or Ruby
licensed

* Cleaning
  - %clean section is no longer needed (on Fedora):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean

* Documentation
  - Please do not disable documentation generation, since ruby forces
installation of ruby-rdoc, therefore rdoc should be available prior the gem
installation
  - Please consider to provide the documentation in -doc subpackage

* Requires
  - BuildRequires: rubygem(minitest) is needed for text execution

* Tests
  - Please execute test suite using following command:
  ruby -I../lib -e "Dir.glob('test/test_*').each {|t| require t}"
This allows you to avoid build dependency on rake, hoe, rubyforge and
neither
ZenTest is required IMO.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 674115] Review Request: yuicompressor-appjet - JavaScript minifier

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674115

Sebastian Dziallas  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends on||674114

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 674114] Review Request: rhino-appjet - JavaScript for Java as modified by Appjet

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674114

Sebastian Dziallas  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||674115

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 674115] New: Review Request: yuicompressor-appjet - JavaScript minifier

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: yuicompressor-appjet - JavaScript minifier

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674115

   Summary: Review Request: yuicompressor-appjet - JavaScript
minifier
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: sebast...@when.com
 QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora


Spec URL: http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/yuicompressor-appjet.spec
SRPM URL:
http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/yuicompressor-appjet-2.4.2-1.fc14.src.rpm
Description: Package required for Etherpad!

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 674114] New: Review Request: rhino-appjet - JavaScript for Java as modified by Appjet

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: rhino-appjet - JavaScript for Java as modified by 
Appjet

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674114

   Summary: Review Request: rhino-appjet - JavaScript for Java as
modified by Appjet
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: sebast...@when.com
 QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora


Spec URL: http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/rhino-appjet.spec
SRPM URL:
http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/rhino-appjet-1.7-0.1.R1.fc14.src.rpm
Description: Package is required for Etherpad!

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 665995] Review Request: fmit - Free Music Instrument Tuner

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665995

--- Comment #26 from Damian Wrobel  2011-01-31 
12:34:29 EST ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> There are two issues with your request:
> 
> 1) It is too early to request f15 branches.
OK, please skip f15.

> 2) fmit already exists in the package database.
It's probably the result of the bug #459455, comment #19?

> Are you requesting that the existing package be unretired?
I'm not sure how to classify it, for me this package is neither retired nor
orphaned (see bug #459455, comment #26, or your last comment in the bug
#500277, comment #10). In other words I couldn't find it neither on orphaned[1]
nor retired[2] list.

I would appreciate your help, how to proceed.


[1]. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/orphans
[2]. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/RetiredPackages

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 668542] Review Request: php-pChart - A PHP class to build charts.

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668542

--- Comment #5 from Jochen Schmitt  2011-01-31 12:25:12 
EST ---
Sorry for my delay. 

Unfortunately I have an addtional complaint:

If you are repackageing the source tar ball to avoid the distributation of not
properly licensed content, you should not specified a full-quallified URL in
the source tag. You should specified only the name of the generated tar ball to
document, that you have take it not on an official distributation place.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 674082] Review Request: mchange-commons - A collection of general purpose utilities for c3p0

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674082

--- Comment #5 from Mat Booth  2011-01-31 12:50:01 EST 
---
Sorry, typo in the srpm url:

Spec URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/mchange-commons.spec
SRPM URL:
http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/mchange-commons-0.2-0.3.20110130hg.fc14.src.rpm

Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2753386

Rpmlint:
mchange-commons.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 656017] Review Request: drupal6-imagefield - ImageField provides an image upload field for CCK

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656017

--- Comment #3 from Peter Borsa  2011-01-31 12:55:27 EST 
---
http://asrob.fedorapeople.org/SOURCES/drupal6-imagefield.spec
http://asrob.fedorapeople.org/SOURCES/drupal6-imagefield-3.9-1.fc14.src.rpm

Updated files, new upstream version, added fixes based on your suggestion.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 668542] Review Request: php-pChart - A PHP class to build charts.

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668542

--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey Ness  2011-01-31 
12:55:35 EST ---
Hello Jochen,

Thanks for your time, however it seems the creator of pChart has just released
version 2.0:

http://www.pchart.net/download

Being this version is now in tar format we can avoid all the issues with
generating a tar format, when I get a chance I'm going to test out this
software and package the latest version if acceptable.

Jeffrey-

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 613001] Review Request: Heimdal - Alternative Kerberos implementation

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613001

--- Comment #14 from Orion Poplawski  2011-01-31 12:55:24 
EST ---
Looks like imath has been dropped in git master.  readline can be used instead
of editline.  The gssapi lib is a heimdal library.  That leaves libtommath. 
I've pointed heimdal to the new libtommath upstream so hopefully we can get
them integrated.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 646608] Rename review: drupal-service_links -> drupal6-service_links

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646608

--- Comment #8 from Jochen Schmitt  2011-01-31 12:30:12 
EST ---
Unfortunately I have some complaints:

1.) I want to the a provides tag.

2.) You thould increas the Epoche because the versioning schema was changed.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 646606] Rename review: drupal-workspace -> drupal6-workspace

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646606

--- Comment #10 from Jochen Schmitt  2011-01-31 
12:32:27 EST ---
I disagree with you. My expericense shows, that you don't rely to the basename
of the package. Ths may occurs some odd results.

So it may be better to increase the Epoche of 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 674082] Review Request: mchange-commons - A collection of general purpose utilities for c3p0

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674082

--- Comment #4 from Mat Booth  2011-01-31 12:49:01 EST 
---
Ok, now we build the Javadocs :-)

Spec URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/mchange-commons.spec
SRPM URL:
http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/mchange-commons-0.3-0.2.20110130hg.fc14.src.rpm

Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2753386

Rpmlint:
mchange-commons.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 654879] Review Request: since - stateful tail

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=654879

--- Comment #10 from Sven Lankes  2011-01-31 13:10:58 EST ---
Thanks for looking at the spec - I've fixed the issues you pointed out:

Spec URL: http://yuio.de/Fedora/SPECS/since.spec
SRPM URL: http://yuio.de/Fedora/SRPMS/since-1.1-3.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 654007] Review Request: python-simplemediawiki - Extremely low-level wrapper to the MediaWiki API

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=654007

Luke Macken  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||lmac...@redhat.com
   Flag|fedora-cvs+ |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 665560] Review Request: rubygem-mail - A Really Ruby Mail Library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665560

Mohammed Morsi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+

--- Comment #18 from Mohammed Morsi  2011-01-31 12:53:04 EST 
---
> There is not 'Gemfile.lock' in upstream - create this file by 'touch' in 
> %prep.
> Is this right?

No, this file gets created during the build. Please remove this.

(In reply to comment #17)
> Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail.spec
> SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail-2.2.15-1.fc14.src.rpm
> 
> Updated to latest upstream release (v.2.2.15 25/01/2011)
> 
> Spec(previous) URL:
>  http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail-2.2.14-5.fc14.spec


Once the touch 'Gemfile.lock' is removed, everything looks go. The package
depends on bundler (BZ #646836), which has been approved but not pushed yet.
The package builds fine in mock though with the bundler rpm preinstalled.


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 673115] Review Request: dee-qt - Qt bindings and QML plugin for Dee

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673115

--- Comment #4 from Jaroslav Reznik  2011-01-31 12:50:43 
EST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Could we get some actual review here?  Given that the package fails to meet 
> the
> naming guidelines (as there's no date in the package version), I'm not sure 
> how
> much review was actually done.

Ok, my fault here doing the actual review over IRC and not updating it in
actual review.

For naming guidelines - I omit date as I think it's useless information when
the revision is used. But I agree - this should be bring to FPC table and
changed in naming guidelines. Sorry for that.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 654007] Review Request: python-simplemediawiki - Extremely low-level wrapper to the MediaWiki API

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=654007

--- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi  2011-01-31 13:29:35 EST ---
GIT 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 665168] Review Request: nautilus-sendto-trac - Nautilus context menu for sending files to Trac

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665168

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 665168] Review Request: nautilus-sendto-trac - Nautilus context menu for sending files to Trac

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665168

--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  
2011-01-31 13:30:55 EST ---
nautilus-sendto-trac-0.3.1-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora
14.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nautilus-sendto-trac-0.3.1-2.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 665995] Review Request: fmit - Free Music Instrument Tuner

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665995

--- Comment #27 from Kevin Kofler  2011-01-31 12:52:20 
EST ---
The previously reviewed package never got imported, and it got orphaned, then
retired in pkgdb. So the package should be unretired, f13 and f14 branches
created if they're not already there, and ownership on all active branches
(devel, f14, f13) reassigned to dwrobel.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 665995] Review Request: fmit - Free Music Instrument Tuner

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665995

--- Comment #28 from Jason Tibbitts  2011-01-31 13:46:46 EST 
---
I've unretired the package and added the two new branches.  Please verify that
everything is set up properly in pkgdb.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 664826] Review Request: lucene3 - High-performance, full-featured text search engine

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664826

--- Comment #3 from Hicham HAOUARI  2011-01-31 
13:45:56 EST ---
Thanks Stanislav for doing the review. Indeed, the spec is a copy/paste of
lucene2 spec, I will try to fix the issues you mentioned ASAP.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 654879] Review Request: since - stateful tail

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=654879

Martin Gieseking  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|martin.giesek...@uos.de
   Flag||fedora-review+

--- Comment #11 from Martin Gieseking  2011-01-31 
13:54:41 EST ---
The package looks good now. Just add a final dot to the %description text. :)
As you probably don't want to build the package for EPEL < 6, you can ignore
the [X]-marked items below.


$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-x86_64/result/*.rpm
since.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Stateful -> Tasteful, Stateless,
Stately
since.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Stateful -> Tasteful, Stateless,
Stately
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

The spelling errors are false positive.

-
key:

[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-

[+] 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 meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
GPLv3+ according to README

[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The 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.
$ md5sum since-1.1.tar.gz*
7a6cfe573d0d2ec7b6f53fe9432a486b  since-1.1.tar.gz
7a6cfe573d0d2ec7b6f53fe9432a486b  since-1.1.tar.gz.1

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
koji scratch build (f15):
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2753430

[+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be applied.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. 
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc 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: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

EPEL <= 5 only:
[X] MUST: The spec file must contain a valid BuildRoot field.
[X] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[X] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[.] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'

[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file ...
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
[.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself.
[+] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.

[Bug 665560] Review Request: rubygem-mail - A Really Ruby Mail Library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665560

--- Comment #19 from Minnikhanov  2011-01-31 14:01:21 
EST ---
Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail.spec
SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-mail-2.2.15-2.fc14.src.rpm

(In reply to comment #18)
> > There is not 'Gemfile.lock' in upstream - create this file by 'touch' in 
> > %prep.
> > Is this right?
> 
> No, this file gets created during the build. Please remove this.
> 

+ Fixed.

> 
> Once the touch 'Gemfile.lock' is removed, everything looks go. The package
> depends on bundler (BZ #646836), which has been approved but not pushed yet.
> The package builds fine in mock though with the bundler rpm preinstalled.
> 
> 
> APPROVED.

Thanks for review & collaboration.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 665560] Review Request: rubygem-mail - A Really Ruby Mail Library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665560

Minnikhanov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #20 from Minnikhanov  2011-01-31 14:03:38 
EST ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: rubygem-mail
Short Description: A Really Ruby Mail Library.
Owners: minn
Branches: 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 639874] Review Request: python-rocket - Modern, multi-threaded, comet-friendly WSGI web server

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639874

--- Comment #7 from Ilia Cheishvili  2011-01-31 
14:01:56 EST ---
Jeffrey and Toshio, thanks for the reviews.  I have made the suggested changes.
 Find the new SPEC and SRPM here:

https://github.com/icheishvili/rpms/raw/master/python-rocket.spec
https://github.com/icheishvili/rpms/raw/master/python-rocket-1.2.3-1.fc14.src.rpm

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 646836] Review Request: rubygem-bundler - Library and utilities to manages a Ruby application's gem

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646836

--- Comment #24 from Mohammed Morsi  2011-01-31 14:11:44 EST 
---
The updated rpm looks good, though I didn't extensively go into your patch
changing the spec suite since we're not using that anyways. Perhaps it might
not be a bad idea to comment out / remove that patch for the time being until
we can get the spec suite fully working in Fedora, but it doesn't affect the
build or runtime so its not a blocker.

Minor nit, in the 'summary' the word 'manages' should be 'manage'. nbd though.
Would say go ahead a push the package as is, we can work on getting the spec
suite working in the rpm from them.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 656182] Review Request: drupal6-imageapi - This API is meant to be used in place of the API provided by image.inc

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656182

--- Comment #4 from Peter Borsa  2011-01-31 14:18:05 EST 
---
http://asrob.fedorapeople.org/SOURCES/drupal6-imageapi.spec
http://asrob.fedorapeople.org/SOURCES/drupal6-imageapi-1.9-3.fc14.src.rpm

Updated files.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673784

--- Comment #13 from Erik van Pienbroek  
2011-01-31 14:15:33 EST ---
> (In reply to comment #5)
> That said, I consider x86_64-w64-mingw32 to be a mistake.

I agree with you that x86_64-w64-mingw32 isn't an ideal name, but we've got to
do with it for now. While it technically could be made possible to use a
different target it will require patching of almost every package and the
toolchain itself will divert from upstream. Is that really a direction we
should be going..?

How about these names for the source rpms:

crossdesktop-filesystem - Contains the binary RPMs mingw32-filesystem,
mingw64-filesytem and (later) darwinx-filesystem
mingw-binutils - Contains the binary RPMs mingw32-binutils and mingw64-binutils
mingw-gcc - Contains the binary RPMs mingw32-gcc and mingw64-gcc
mingw-headers - Contains the binary RPMs mingw32-headers and mingw64-headers
mingw-crt - Contains the binary RPMs mingw32-crt and mingw64-crt

and in the future, once legal issues get cleared :
darwinx-odcctools - Contains the binutils equivalent for Mac OS X
darwinx-gcc - Contains Apple's version of GCC(In reply to comment #6)
darwinx-sdk - Contains the various headers and libraries of a default Mac OS X
environment

All mingw32-* packages could then get renamed to crossdesktop-* packages and
produce binary RPMs called mingw32-*, mingw64-* (and later darwinx-*)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 673589] Review Request: UpTools - C++ library for hpc, networking, db, memory, etc.

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673589

seb...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Attachment #476176|0   |1
is obsolete||

--- Comment #6 from seb...@gmail.com 2011-01-31 14:21:33 EST ---
Created attachment 476256
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=476256
Patch to original spec file

+- Styles mixing fixed
+- Added openssl-devel as BuildRequires
+- Drop "." ant the end Summary
+- Fixed BuildRoot
+- Fixed Summary and Description
+- Fixed %%pre and %%postun
+- Fixed file-not-utf8
+- Fixed spec file 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 674152] New: mingw32-matahari - Matahari QMF Agents for Windows guests

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: mingw32-matahari - Matahari QMF Agents for Windows guests

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674152

   Summary: mingw32-matahari - Matahari QMF Agents for Windows
guests
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: Unspecified
OS/Version: Unspecified
Status: NEW
  Severity: unspecified
  Priority: unspecified
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: and...@beekhof.net
 QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora


Matahari provides a QMF Agent that can be used to control and manage
various pieces of functionality for an ovirt node, using the AMQP protocol.

The Advanced Message Queuing Protocol (AMQP) is an open standard application
layer protocol providing reliable transport of messages.

QMF provides a modeling framework layer on top of qpid (which implements
AMQP).  This interface allows you to manage a host and its various components
as a set of objects with properties and methods.

MinGW cross-compiled Windows application.


SPEC: http://www.clusterlabs.org/~beekhof/mingw32-matahari.spec
SRPM:
http://www.clusterlabs.org/~beekhof/mingw32-matahari-0.4.0-0.11.8003b6c.git.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 656179] Review Request: drupal6-imagecache - ImageCache allows you to setup presets for image processing

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656179

--- Comment #4 from Peter Borsa  2011-01-31 14:29:19 EST 
---
http://asrob.fedorapeople.org/SOURCES/drupal6-imagecache.spec
http://asrob.fedorapeople.org/SOURCES/drupal6-imagecache-2.0-0.3.beta10.fc14.src.rpm

Updated files.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 668820] Review Request: rubygem-rdoc - RDoc produces HTML and command-line documentation for Ruby projects

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668820

Mohammed Morsi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|651898  |

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 651898] Review Request: rubygem-activemodel - A toolkit for building modeling frameworks

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=651898

Mohammed Morsi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends on|668820  |
   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+

--- Comment #8 from Mohammed Morsi  2011-01-31 14:35:56 EST 
---
Everything looks good

APPROVED

Also removed the rdoc blocker as I was mistaken it is not an activesupport
3.0.3 dependency.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 656186] Review Request: drupal6-mimedetect - MimeDetect provides an API for consistent server side mime detection

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656186

--- Comment #3 from Peter Borsa  2011-01-31 14:34:29 EST 
---
http://asrob.fedorapeople.org/SOURCES/drupal6-mimedetect.spec
http://asrob.fedorapeople.org/SOURCES/drupal6-mimedetect-1.3-3.fc14.src.rpm

Updated files.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 673589] Review Request: UpTools - C++ library for hpc, networking, db, memory, etc.

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673589

--- Comment #7 from seb...@gmail.com 2011-01-31 14:39:40 EST ---
SPEC URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14217893/UpTools.spec
SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14217893/UpTools-8.5.4-1.fc14.src.rpm

I've made the following actios:

+- Styles mixing fixed
+- Added openssl-devel as BuildRequires
+- Drop "." ant the end Summary
+- Fixed BuildRoot
+- Fixed Summary and Description
+- Fixed %%pre and %%postun
+- Fixed file-not-utf8
+- Fixed spec file name

rpmlint output:

rpmlint -i -v  UpTools.spec 
UpTools.spec: I: checking-url
http://www.palermo.edu/ingenieria/UpTools-8.5.4.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


rpmlint -v -i /home/sergio/rpmbuild/SRPMS/UpTools-8.5.4-1.fc14.src.rpm

UpTools.src: I: checking
UpTools.src: I: checking-url
http://www.palermo.edu/ingenieria/uptools_ingles.html (timeout 10 seconds)
UpTools.src: I: checking-url
http://www.palermo.edu/ingenieria/UpTools-8.5.4.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

rpmlint -v -i /home/sergio/rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/UpTools-8.5.4-1.fc14.i686.rpm 
UpTools.i686: I: checking
UpTools.i686: I: checking-url
http://www.palermo.edu/ingenieria/uptools_ingles.html (timeout 10 seconds)
UpTools.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libUpTools.so
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.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint -v -i
/home/sergio/rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/UpTools-devel-8.5.4-1.fc14.i686.rpm 
UpTools-devel.i686: I: checking
UpTools-devel.i686: I: checking-url
http://www.palermo.edu/ingenieria/uptools_ingles.html (timeout 10 seconds)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

rpmlint -v -i
/home/sergio/rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/UpTools-static-8.5.4-1.fc14.i686.rpm 
UpTools-static.i686: I: checking
UpTools-static.i686: I: checking-url
http://www.palermo.edu/ingenieria/uptools_ingles.html (timeout 10 seconds)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

The only problematic thing that I see is the warning about development package
creation. Should I join "UpTools+Uptools-devel" package? And what about is
someone makes a program that already was linked against UpTools library?

About the UpTools-devel files and about  %{_includedir}/UpTools/ I see no
problem about it:

rpm -qlpv  /home/sergio/rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/UpTools-devel-8.5.4-1.fc14.i686.rpm
| grep UpTools$
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 ene 31 16:05
/usr/include/UpTools


You can view my task also on:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2753478

I look forward you 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 596138] Review Request: nss-gui - A graphical user interface for NSS security databases

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596138

--- Comment #18 from Kai Engert (kaie)  2011-01-31 14:42:04 
EST ---
Jason, thank you very much for your time, I highly appreciate it.

(In reply to comment #17)
> Indeed, the 0.3.6 version starts in rawhide and seems to function well enough.

glad to hear


> I note that there's only the MPL license text included.

I updated the LICENSE file to include a header, followed by all 3 license
texts.
Released as 0.3.7


> I assume you want to push this to el5, since it appears to have a sufficiently
> new xulrunner.

Yes


> If not, however, you can remove BuildRoot, %clean and the first
> line of %install.

I've added reminder comments to the specfile, so this cleanup can be done
later, after the RHEL 5 package has been branched.


> It is not necessary for you to manually specify a dependency on
> boost-program-options; rpm finds that out on its own.

Ok, thanks, removed.


> This needs a .desktop file. 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files

Ok. Added an icon and a desktop file.


New spec file
http://kuix.de/fedora/nss-gui/nss-gui.spec

New SRPM
http://kuix.de/fedora/nss-gui/nss-gui-0.3.7-1.fc14.src.rpm


I believe I have addressed all of your requests.
Thanks

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 664924] Review Request: perl-Plack-Middleware-Test-StashWarnings - Test your application's warnings

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664924

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|perl-Plack-Middleware-Test- |perl-Plack-Middleware-Test-
   |StashWarnings-0.04-1.fc13   |StashWarnings-0.04-1.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 664924] Review Request: perl-Plack-Middleware-Test-StashWarnings - Test your application's warnings

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664924

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-Plack-Middleware-Test-
   ||StashWarnings-0.04-1.fc13
 Resolution||ERRATA
Last Closed||2011-01-31 14:51:19

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 652576] Review Request: ghc-texmath - Haskell texmathml library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652576

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  
2011-01-31 14:52:30 EST ---
ghc-texmath-0.4-3.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 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 ghc-texmath'.  You can provide
feedback for this update here:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-texmath-0.4-3.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 598688] Review Request: archivemount - FUSE based filesystem for mounting compressed archives

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598688

--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  
2011-01-31 14:53:41 EST ---
archivemount-0.6.1-4.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 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 664924] Review Request: perl-Plack-Middleware-Test-StashWarnings - Test your application's warnings

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664924

--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  
2011-01-31 14:52:36 EST ---
perl-Plack-Middleware-Test-StashWarnings-0.04-1.fc14 has been pushed to the
Fedora 14 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 664924] Review Request: perl-Plack-Middleware-Test-StashWarnings - Test your application's warnings

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664924

--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  
2011-01-31 14:51:14 EST ---
perl-Plack-Middleware-Test-StashWarnings-0.04-1.fc13 has been pushed to the
Fedora 13 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 652582] Review Request: pandoc - Markdown markup converter

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652582

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  
2011-01-31 14:53:16 EST ---
pandoc-1.6.0.1-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 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 pandoc'.  You can provide
feedback for this update here:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pandoc-1.6.0.1-2.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 651227] Review Request: python-sleekxmpp - Flexible XMPP client/component/server library for Python

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=651227

--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  
2011-01-31 14:58:15 EST ---
python-sleekxmpp-1.0-0.7.beta2.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 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 651227] Review Request: python-sleekxmpp - Flexible XMPP client/component/server library for Python

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=651227

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|python-sleekxmpp-1.0-0.7.be |python-sleekxmpp-1.0-0.7.be
   |ta2.fc14|ta2.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 658942] Review Request: drupal6-schema - The Schema API allows modules to declare their database tables in a structured array and provides API functions

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658942

--- Comment #4 from Peter Borsa  2011-01-31 14:54:34 EST 
---
http://asrob.fedorapeople.org/SOURCES/drupal6-schema.spec
http://asrob.fedorapeople.org/SOURCES/drupal6-schema-1.7-4.fc14.src.rpm

Updated files.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 663244] Review Request: CUnit - A unit testing framework for C

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663244

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  
2011-01-31 14:56:23 EST ---
CUnit-2.1.2-6.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 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 CUnit'.  You can provide
feedback for this update here:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/CUnit-2.1.2-6.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 598688] Review Request: archivemount - FUSE based filesystem for mounting compressed archives

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598688

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||archivemount-0.6.1-4.fc14
 Resolution||ERRATA
Last Closed||2011-01-31 14:53:49

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 672318] Review Request: python26-m2crypto - Support for using OpenSSL in python scripts

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672318

Garrett Holmstrom  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||m...@redhat.com

--- Comment #1 from Garrett Holmstrom  2011-01-31 
15:11:55 EST ---
Also CC'ing the current m2crypto maintainer for Fedora on this 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 665995] Review Request: fmit - Free Music Instrument Tuner

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665995

--- Comment #29 from Damian Wrobel  2011-01-31 
15:13:38 EST ---
The f13 and f14 branches seems to be missing:

git branch -r
  origin/HEAD -> origin/master
  origin/f10/master
  origin/f11/master
  origin/f9/master
  origin/master

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 668090] Review Request: rubygem-railties - Rails internals: application bootup, plugins, generators, and rake tasks.

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668090

--- Comment #9 from Mohammed Morsi  2011-01-31 15:14:04 EST 
---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-railties.spec
> SRPM URL:
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14118661/rubygem-railties-3.0.3-5.fc14.src.rpm 
> 
> koji scratch build: green
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2746333 
> TEST DON'T PASS. 
> Packages built.
> 

Thanks for these updated rpms, since the tests don't pass but we've verified
functionality, could you comment the check section for the time being. I don't
like relying on the fact that 'rake test' doesn't return a non-zero exit code
when the tests fail in railties. You can also comment the BuildRequires needed
for the tests for the time being.


> > 
> > This will only get you to another set of errors. Looking into those its
> > apparent that the railties test suite is dependent on the rails gem itself 
> > to
> > work, introducing a circular dependency, thus cannot be included in the 
> > rpm. I
> > verified the functionality though through use via the rubygem-rails package.
> > 
> > With this you can remove (or at least comment out) quite a few things 
> > relating
> > to the test suite. Also remove the bits deleting the .empty_directory files.
> > After that I'll approve.
> 
> I saw test suite and look only circular dependency to rails's gems. I am not
> ready break these loops.
> 
> May I offer:
> 1. Remove all test suite.
> 2. Build clear gem rpm.
> 3. Prepare test suite rpm. 
> 3. After build all rpms, build test suite rpm and run it.
> 
> Source 'railties' found in the same git-repo where found 'rails' and other
> basis of rails.
> Rails's developer tests all together.
> My opinion we must go the same way - 
> 1 - Build all, 2 - Install all, 3 - Test all after all.
> 
> PS. Packages that can test separately, build with test suite. For another
> packages make separate post-build/installation test-suite rpm.
> railties-test-rpm

We won't be able to do this for Fedora. Each RPM is its own self-contained unit
with explicit dependencies. We can't have circular build time dependencies and
can't execute an rpm's test suite in another rpm's spec. Each rpm needs to be
able to be independently built, installed, and verified

Again thanks for the update. Everything looks good save the running of the test
suite and one additional nit. As with the mail gem, the "fix any executable
that doesn't have a shebang" and "find files with a shebang that do not have
executable permissions" sections seem to be unnecessary (I checked) and can be
removed (they clutter the rpm build log).

Once these final two changes are done, I'll approve.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 655184] Review Request: drupal6-data - Data module helps you model, manage and query related sets of tables.

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=655184

--- Comment #11 from Peter Borsa  2011-01-31 15:29:26 
EST ---
http://asrob.fedorapeople.org/SOURCES/drupal6-data.spec
http://asrob.fedorapeople.org/SOURCES/drupal6-data-1.0-0.4.alpha14.fc14.src.rpm

Updated files.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 656160] Review Request: drupal6-filefield - FileField provides a universal file upload field for CCK

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656160

--- Comment #3 from Peter Borsa  2011-01-31 15:35:08 EST 
---
http://asrob.fedorapeople.org/SOURCES/drupal6-filefield.spec
http://asrob.fedorapeople.org/SOURCES/drupal6-filefield-3.9-1.fc14.src.rpm

Updated files.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 667954] Review Request: rubygem-arel - Arel is a Relational Algebra for Ruby

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=667954

--- Comment #10 from Mohammed Morsi  2011-01-31 16:33:45 EST 
---
Created attachment 476270
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=476270
activerecord build in mock against arel 2.0.2 and 2.0.7

I'm not quite sure how we are running into different results using mock.
Attached are the commands I ran and their output to build activerecord in via
mock. Once again it works with arel 2.0.2 but not 2.0.7. 

Before I ran this I removed the specific version of the arel dependency in the
activerecord rpm so as to be able to build against both 2.0.2 and 2.0.7. In
both cases I'm running the test suite against the stock sqlite3-ruby gem in
Fedora (1.2.4)

Does anything look different between our approaches?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly 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

Balint Cristian  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||cristian.bal...@gmail.com

--- Comment #26 from Balint Cristian  2011-01-31 
16:32:35 EST ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> Strictly speaking no, but I would prefer if we had that right. Better to try
> for it.

Hello Folks,

 - Agree with booth, including lets try, but as last time with OGP and as for
now there are some benevolent logic they might wont agree, for some good reason
I can only explain that but only for "modify" paragraph.


 - that dataset is about some "ephemeres" and math like constants, its very
wrong if people just modify those datas for potential forks, its like I would
try some wierd math were PI is 3.15 instead if 3.14 and try even convince the
world its just a brand new view on "geometries" and nothing is wrong.
 - OGP done that database and mark with their lets say "brand/name" and their
credibility as surveyors (as Fedora guarantee certain things with their
packages with their brand), things are done in years by precise geodetical
surveys on-field and many calculus (many are done in colaboration with really
paranoic and difficult governments), so any changes are made there for any
reason as they also try state even in the very license is subject to alter
"reality" for which EPSG cannot be responsable, and such changes are only for
the damage of any community. They want by this way make sure any project is
compatible with any other distinct project in resulting outputs in any future,
like the example with PI constant. If at M.I.T. PI=3.14 at other universities
should be too !


 Would this change a bit optics of RH legal on this ?


Regarding commercial (just guesses for very good reasons):

 - big and mogul companies like ESRI (the M$ equiv in GIS) would love to just
bypass "the surveying stage of ephemers" for their products, but also would
never give 1 cent to EPSG effort (I am confident in that). So EPSG decided that
its free for "free" projects but not for ESRI or others who demonstrated
ignorance at all during the time. They should go nicely on-field, pay their
surveyors (even vaccinate them for dangerous places like those ones from
Africa,Asia or Amazon) for lets say like 10 years and gather proper dataset on
they own, then sell it just as they want. Unfortunately opensource GIS world is
at a level with many things still to be done, but, by far cannot afford even to
atempt to make a proper EPSG-like dataset without "borrowing" datas.And just
from pure surveys (on field would be cleanest effort), also its not at the
level to choke fingers with many governments to grant access to such datas, and
even license it to a crowd of peoples as they would wish !

 In worst case, without EPSG we can forget "all" about Fedora and any of
opensource GIS packages, to mention a list of:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/GIS (and counting 10x more very interesting ones
on the internet), so without EPSG _all_ those can be rendered outside of
Fedora. Google highly popularised GIS around the world just by 'google-eath'
there are the smart-phones, GPSs and cool navigation devices just spread in
last 2-3 years, there are also the geotagged photos and so on, we would be
lousy ones to skip these events out.


 I hope Volker to get a favorable answer back (I am doubting a bit), anyway I
try catch up with Him see how could I help, some smooth and clean strategy is
needed with OGP, but changing their optics will be hard.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 667954] Review Request: rubygem-arel - Arel is a Relational Algebra for Ruby

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=667954

--- Comment #11 from Mohammed Morsi  2011-01-31 16:38:29 EST 
---
Comment on attachment 476270
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=476270
activerecord build in mock against arel 2.0.2 and 2.0.7

Please ignore this line in the attachment:

"mock -r fedora-14-x86_64 --copyin rubygem-activemodel-3.0.3-2.fc14.src.rpm
/tmp/^C"

Notice I canceled it before it was run (the ^C). The activerecord srpm is
copied in a little later afterwards.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 674180] New: Review Request: knights - A chess board for KDE

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: knights - A chess board for KDE

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674180

   Summary: Review Request: knights - A chess board for KDE
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: julian.fed...@googlemail.com
 QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora


Spec URL: http://julian.fedorapeople.org/knights/knights.spec
SRPM URL: http://julian.fedorapeople.org/knights/knights-2.2.0-1.fc14.src.rpm
Description: Knights is a chess board for KDE that supports playing against
computer engines that support the XBoard protocol like GNUChess and also
multiplayer games over the internet on FICS. It features automatic rule
checking, themes, and nice animations

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly 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

--- Comment #28 from Kevin Kofler  2011-01-31 16:52:08 
EST ---
PS: If you want to change the value of M_PI in glibc to 3., you actually have
the freedom to do that! It's part of being Free Software. And anyway, the data
at hand here is not cast in stone the way pi is.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 621416] Review Request: libgeotiff -- GeoTIFF format library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly 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

--- Comment #27 from Kevin Kofler  2011-01-31 16:48:56 
EST ---
While I do understand where they're coming from, this doesn't change that this
license is not a Free license:
* about modification:
- All data can have errors. It is important that a project be able to fix any
errors found in the data.
- The data may also change over time for physical reasons.
- Upstream themselves update their data every so often, which proves that it's
NOT set in stone as you're trying to paint it.
* about the non-commercial restriction: This is just plain unacceptable for
Fedora (as Fedora and derivative distributions must be redistributable for
profit by third parties) and many other people and entities. No matter how good
the intentions behind "free for Free projects only", this effectively renders
the data non-Free. The freedom to use the data for any purpose, even
commercial, is part of being Free. See also:
http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 674188] New: Review Request: libzeitgeist - Library to access zeitgeist; needed by synapse

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: libzeitgeist - Library to access zeitgeist; needed by 
synapse

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674188

   Summary: Review Request: libzeitgeist - Library to access
zeitgeist; needed by synapse
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: unspecified
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: ren...@woralelandia.com
 QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora


Spec URL: http://renich.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/libzeitgeist.spec
SRPM URL:
http://renich.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/libzeitgeist-0.3.2-1.fc14.src.rpm
Description: This project provides a client library for applications that want
to interact with the Zeitgeist daemon. The library is written in C using glib
and provides an asynchronous GObject oriented API.

I need this library for synapse; which is under review here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671862

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly 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

--- Comment #29 from Balint Cristian  2011-01-31 
17:15:05 EST ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> PS: If you want to change the value of M_PI in glibc to 3., you actually have
> the freedom to do that! It's part of being Free Software. And anyway, the data
> at hand here is not cast in stone the way pi is.


 OK, lets take theory: suppose I would.
 - I should try convince glibc comitee that my glibc fork is able to to such
powerfull non-euclidian math, would even teleport through space-time bend
created. I am sure some people even will belive that around the globe.

 There are the fonts too, is bitstream-vera still "vera" or only "bitstream"
judging that i will modd 2-3 pixels around a decent fork ?

Guys,  Is there any way to derogate such exceptions at 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 621416] Review Request: libgeotiff -- GeoTIFF format library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly 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

--- Comment #30 from Kevin Kofler  2011-01-31 17:27:03 
EST ---
No. There are no exceptions to the legal guidelines.

You MAY be able to convince FESCo that this data is content, not code, and as
such can be distributed under the guidelines for content, which doesn't require
the permission to modify. But even for content, banning commercial use is not
acceptable.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 533302] Review Request: rst2pdf - Tool for transforming reStructuredText to PDF

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=533302

Sergio Pascual  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||674076

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 533302] Review Request: rst2pdf - Tool for transforming reStructuredText to PDF

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=533302

Sergio Pascual  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #6 from Sergio Pascual  2011-01-31 17:47:17 
EST ---
Package Change Request
==
Package Name: rst2pdf
New Branches: el5 el6
Owners: sergiopr

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 671862] Review Request: synapse - gnome-do alternative (no mono)

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671862

--- Comment #5 from Renich Bon Ciric  2011-01-31 
18:01:18 EST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> You must open a separate review request for libzeitgeist.

Done:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674188

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #29 from Renich Bon Ciric  2011-01-31 
18:00:10 EST ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> I think the "godoc" command can provides documentation for go's commands also.

I have added info on this to README.Fedora

> I think it should be named emacs-go to conform with the Packaging:Emacs
> naming guidelines.

Yes; thank You. I've changed not only emacs but vim to reflect this:
emacs-go
vim-go

Please, review:
http://renich.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/go.spec
http://renich.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/go-20110120-6.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 484644] Review Request: screenlets - Fully themeable mini-apps

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484644

--- Comment #28 from Sergio Pascual  2011-01-31 
18:18:32 EST ---
Any progress with this?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 542436] Review Request: python-cloudfiles - Python language bindings for Rackspace CloudFiles API

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542436

--- Comment #13 from BJ Dierkes  2011-01-31 18:26:47 
EST ---

(In reply to comment #12)
> You should probably open up a new review request instead of reopening a old 
> new
> since the reports counting reviews processes will get confused otherwise and
> you shouldn't assign the review request to yourself.  

I don't really follow why I should create a new tracker for this.  Seems more
efficient to take it over since the original owner dropped it rather than
having duplicates.


> 
> * Should document why you are using the git version instead of the release in
> the spec file

Done.  Noted that, the git version is not a 'git clone' of the repo in place of
an official tarbal, but rather that github uses the tagg'ed git version when
generating the tarbal.


> 
> * Should document the patch and their upstream status

This was applied upstream, and now removed.

> 
> * No need to define the buildroot or have a clean section unless you are
> branching for EPEL

This will be branched for EPEL.


SPEC: http://5dollarwhitebox.org/fedora/python-cloudfiles.spec
SRPMS: http://5dollarwhitebox.org/fedora/python-cloudfiles-1.7.7-1.fc14.src.rpm

$ rpmlint -i SPECS/python-cloudfiles.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint -i RPMS/noarch/python-cloudfiles-1.7.7-1.fc14.noarch.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #30 from Jason Tibbitts  2011-01-31 18:29:46 EST 
---
Is it really a good idea ask folks to report bugs directly to you via email in
README.Fedora?  What happens if the package changes ownership?  How will any
potential comaintainers see bug reports?  Will you run your own bug tracker as
well?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 542436] Review Request: python-cloudfiles - Python language bindings for Rackspace CloudFiles API

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542436

--- Comment #14 from Thomas Spura  2011-01-31 
18:44:00 EST ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> (In reply to comment #12)
> > You should probably open up a new review request instead of reopening a old 
> > new
> > since the reports counting reviews processes will get confused otherwise and
> > you shouldn't assign the review request to yourself.  
> 
> I don't really follow why I should create a new tracker for this.  Seems more
> efficient to take it over since the original owner dropped it rather than
> having duplicates.

That way, bug reporter is always submitter of the package. This is meant
implicitly at [1]:
"""
If the bug is resubmitted by someone else, it is also reasonable to change the
resolution on the closed bug to DUPLICATE and mark it as a duplicate of the new
bug so that reviewers of the new ticket can easily find the work that was done
on the old one.
"""

Basically you resubmit it now in the same bug now...


[1]
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews#Submitter_not_responding

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 672440] Review Request: flann - Fast Library for Approximate Nearest Neighbors

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672440

--- Comment #3 from Rich Mattes  2011-01-31 18:54:40 EST 
---
Alright, exit(1) has been fixed.  Flann includes its own implementation of
malloc(), and it was calling exit(1) when it couldn't allocate enough memory. 
I patched it to return NULL instead.  Once the next version is released, I will
be able to drop the patch.

Spec URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/flann/flann.spec
SRPM URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/flann/flann-1.6.7-2.fc14.src.rpm

$ rpmlint flann.spec ../RPMS/x86_64/flann*flann-devel.x86_64: W:
no-documentation
flann-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation
flann-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2753897

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 674207] New: Review Request: python-cloudfiles - Python language bindings for Rackspace CloudFiles API

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: python-cloudfiles - Python language bindings for 
Rackspace CloudFiles API

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674207

   Summary: Review Request: python-cloudfiles - Python language
bindings for Rackspace CloudFiles API
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: wdier...@rackspace.com
 QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora


SPEC: http://5dollarwhitebox.org/fedora/python-cloudfiles.spec
SRPMS: http://5dollarwhitebox.org/fedora/python-cloudfiles-1.7.7-1.fc14.src.rpm

Description: python-cloudfiles provides a simple interface to the Rackspace
Cloud Files service. "Cloud Files is reliable, scalable and affordable
web-based storage for backing up and archiving all your static content". Find
out more at .

$ rpmlint -i SPECS/python-cloudfiles.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint -i RPMS/noarch/python-cloudfiles-1.7.7-1.fc14.noarch.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 674207] Review Request: python-cloudfiles - Python language bindings for Rackspace CloudFiles API

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674207

BJ Dierkes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||acturne...@gmail.com

--- Comment #1 from BJ Dierkes  2011-01-31 19:04:03 EST 
---
*** Bug 542436 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 542436] Review Request: python-cloudfiles - Python language bindings for Rackspace CloudFiles API

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542436

BJ Dierkes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution||DUPLICATE
Last Closed|2010-12-17 10:26:55 |2011-01-31 19:04:03

--- Comment #15 from BJ Dierkes  2011-01-31 19:04:03 
EST ---
OK... closing this then as it is now a duplicate of 674207

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 674207 ***

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 672951] Review Request: python-elixir - A declarative mapper for SQLAlchemy

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672951

Jeffrey Ness  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
   |python26-elixir - A |python-elixir - A
   |declarative mapper for  |declarative mapper for
   |SQLAlchemy  |SQLAlchemy

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #31 from Renich Bon Ciric  2011-01-31 
19:08:53 EST ---
(In reply to comment #30)
> Is it really a good idea ask folks to report bugs directly to you via email in
> README.Fedora?  What happens if the package changes ownership?  How will any
> potential comaintainers see bug reports?  Will you run your own bug tracker as
> well?

Oh yeah, that...

For the time being, I have a temporal repo and that part of the readme is just
for the moment; if somebody installs it.

As soon as this review passes, I will remove that.

Sorry for not being clear about this.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 672951] Review Request: python-elixir - A declarative mapper for SQLAlchemy

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672951

--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey Ness  2011-01-31 
19:08:58 EST ---
Wanted to get this package built for Fedora base Python, RHEL base Python, and
Python26:

Spec URL: http://flip-edesign.com/source/junk/python-elixir.spec
SRPM URL:
http://flip-edesign.com/source/junk/python-elixir-0.7.1-1.fc14.src.rpm

$ rpmlint SPECS/python-elixir.spec 
SPECS/python-elixir.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://cheeseshop.python.org/packages/source/E/Elixir/Elixir-0.7.1.tar.gz HTTP
Error 404: Not Found
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

]$ rpmlint SRPMS/python-elixir-0.7.1-1.fc14.src.rpm 
python-elixir.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://cheeseshop.python.org/packages/source/E/Elixir/Elixir-0.7.1.tar.gz HTTP
Error 404: Not Found
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 672951] Review Request: python-elixir - A declarative mapper for SQLAlchemy

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672951

--- Comment #4 from BJ Dierkes  2011-01-31 19:14:03 EST 
---
Looks good.  Unfortunately (as I thought might be the case) the python26 files
are bying byte-compiled with python2.4. I pulled the files out of the rpm with
rpm2cpio to have a look:

$ file usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/elixir/__init__.pyo
usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/elixir/__init__.pyo: python 2.4 byte-compiled


I've heard it rumored that there is a hack around this... but I need to
research a bit.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #32 from Renich Bon Ciric  2011-01-31 
19:26:23 EST ---
About the name. It has been suggested on the #fedora-devel IRC channel that the
name could be golang.

Can go devs input on this?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 674006] Review Request: openni - Library for human-machine Natural Interaction

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674006

Rich Mattes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|richmat...@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 674006] Review Request: openni - Library for human-machine Natural Interaction

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674006

Rich Mattes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||richmat...@gmail.com

--- Comment #1 from Rich Mattes  2011-01-31 19:29:34 EST 
---
I'll handle doing this review.

1) The package version is a little wonky.  The package naming guidelines would
have you use a format like "1.0.0.25-0.1.%{gitrev}git%{dist}".  Note the dot
instead of an underscore between the 0.1 and gitrevision.  Likewise, your
changelog entry should read "1.0.0.25-0.1.4c9ff978git".  There are no explicit
examples for git, but the svn examples all have "svn" coming after the numbers.
 I don't think it matters all that much since the 0.1 part of revision should
be bumped each time, nullifying all the junk after the next decimal point.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages

2) When you install files using the "install" command that ship with the
tarball, like the SamplesConfig.xml, you should use -p to preserve the
timestamps on the file.

3) Looking at the scriptlets, you're only registering the libraries on a new
install, and unregistering them when the package is erased.  Do you have to
re-register libraries if they change at all?

4) When you build the source tarball, you should rm -rf the Platform/Win32
folder.  There's a bunch of pre-built windows dll junk and a Visual C++
redistributable in there that don't need to go into the Fedora SCM.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 634025] Review Request: PolarSSL - Light-weight cryptographic and SSL/TLS library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634025

--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  
2011-01-31 19:35:37 EST ---
polarssl-0.14.0-4.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/polarssl-0.14.0-4.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 634025] Review Request: PolarSSL - Light-weight cryptographic and SSL/TLS library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634025

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 634025] Review Request: PolarSSL - Light-weight cryptographic and SSL/TLS library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634025

--- Comment #13 from Mads Kiilerich  2011-01-31 19:40:29 
EST ---
Thanks for the review(s).

Upstream is very friendly and competent but also very busy, quiet and private,
so it will be interesting to see how this will work out ...

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 597681] Review Request: kupfer - A free software launcher

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=597681

--- Comment #12 from Renich Bon Ciric  2011-01-31 
19:49:49 EST ---
Ok, do these work?:

SPEC: http://renich.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/kupfer.spec
SRPM: http://renich.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/kupfer-203-1.fc14.src.rpm

Shoot!

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 674152] Review Request: mingw32-matahari - Matahari QMF Agents for Windows guests

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674152

Jason Tibbitts  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|mingw32-matahari - Matahari |Review Request:
   |QMF Agents for Windows  |mingw32-matahari - Matahari
   |guests  |QMF Agents for Windows
   ||guests

--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts  2011-01-31 19:49:13 EST 
---
Is it really a good idea to submit this now when it seems that all of the
mingw32-* packages are being renamed?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 670127] Review Request: the-board - A space for placing daily records in your GNOME desktop

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670127

--- Comment #10 from Matthias Clasen  2011-01-31 20:35:15 
EST ---
ok, going down the checklist now:

rpmlint: see above, ok
package name: ok
spec file name: ok
packaging guidelines: ok, except as noted below
license: ok
license field: ok
license file: ok
spec language: ok
spec readable: ok
upstream sources: ok
buildable: ok
excludearch: ok
buildrequires: ok
locale handling: ok
ldconfig: need to run /sbin/ldconfig in %post/%postun
system libraries: ok, although libtb is a pretty generic name for an
  app-specific library
relocatable: ok
directory ownership: I think the -nautilus package should perhaps require 
  nautilus, instead of owning %libdir/nautilus ? at least that's what other
  -nautilus subpackages do
duplicate files: ok
file permissions: ok
macro use: ok
permissible content: ok
large docs: ok
%doc content: ok
headers: ok
static libs: ok
shared lib symlinks: ok
devel dep: ok
libtool archives: ok
desktop file: ok
duplicate ownership: ok
utf8 filenames: ok

I don't think the-board should ship its own fonts.conf, in particular not one
that contains a reference to /home/lucasr/Code...

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #33 from Jens Petersen  2011-01-31 20:40:31 
EST ---
(In reply to comment #32)
> About the name. It has been suggested on the #fedora-devel IRC channel that 
> the
> name could be golang.

That was me - maybe it was more a "reality check" question. :)

But having heard that there are many more potential packages
in the pipeline (http://godashboard.appspot.com/project?tag=cgo)
it maybe be good to use "go-" as a prefix for naming go libraries
and bindings perhaps.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review