[Bug 671106] Review Request: perl-Mail-MboxParser - Read-only access to UNIX-mailboxes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671106 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 03:39:11 EST --- perl-Mail-MboxParser-0.55-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Mail-MboxParser-0.55-2.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674060] Review Request: deltacloud-core - Deltacloud REST API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674060
--- Comment #5 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2011-02-07 04:07:04 EST
---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
* Check
- pushd ./%{geminstdir} is not stepping into the correct directory.
The right one is: pushd %{buildroot}%{geminstdir}
AFAIK it's stepping to buildroot, but I replaced ./ with that macro just for
sure. Thanks for noticing that.
* Shipping external project
- This gem bundles external project in support folder. On Fedora shipping
external project in the same package should (must) be avoided, see:
Ouch, sorry I built that gem in support directory so there was some leftovers.
It should be fixed now.
Still the same gem file is bundled = it is not fixed yet.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Bundling_of_multiple_projects
* Missing dependencies
- Since this is Sinatra application, there have to be specified
appropriate dependencies:
Require: rubygem(sinatra)
BuildRequire: rubygem(sinatra)
Require: rubygem(sinatra) was already here but it was missing in BuildRequire.
Should be fixed now.
- Missing rubygem-net-ssh dependency. Not sure if it is runtime
or just development dependency
That's right, thanks for corrections.
- There are missing plenty of others, such as rack. Please test using
mock.
Should be fixed now. Note that other dependencies like 'rubygem-aws' are not
'runtime' dependencies but they are optional. Eg. for using EC2 or other cloud
providers.
* rpmlint output:
- Is this package ahead of upstream?
$ rpmlint rubygem-deltacloud-core.spec
rubygem-deltacloud-core.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://gems.rubyforge.org/gems/deltacloud-core-0.2.0.gem
HTTP Error 404: Not Found
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Yes, I'll need to wait with importing until this package will be available in
upstream (which should happen in next few days).
I am not going forward with this review, since I cannot build on my
environment
due to missing dependencies.
=== v0.2.0-2 ==
Spec URL: http://mifo.sk/RPMS/deltacloud-core.spec
SRPM URL: http://mifo.sk/RPMS/deltacloud-core-0.2.0-2.fc14.src.rpm
Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2761635
* Rawhide build
- The package cannot be build against rawhide, since rawhide contains newer
Sinatra package and there are missing dependencies (tilt, may be others).
But this might very well be Sinatra package flaw, since tilt is required in
lib/sinatra/base.rb for sinatra 1.1.2 (hmm, no test suite executed during
Sinatra build, so no surprise :/ )
* Project name
- You have renamed the project, but I have some doubts about that. I believe
it should be discussed in Ruby-SIG. Are there some policies for shipping
Rails/Sinatra/Other Ruby applications? The reasons are bellow.
- Is there any chance that any other gem will use the code in lib? If no,
then
it just pollutes Ruby load path and should be avoided to prevent
unnecessary
name collisions.
- This package should be manageable just by RPM. Managing by RubyGems has no
benefits for Fedora nor Ruby environment. Therefore please consider
providing package in tar.gz or similar form instead of gem.
* Shipping external project
- This gem bundles external projects in lib/sinatra folder. On Fedora
shipping external project in the same package should (must) be avoided,
see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Bundling_of_multiple_projects
* Licensing
- lib/deltacloud/drivers/opennebula is GPLv2.1+
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669311
--- Comment #27 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com 2011-02-07
04:35:10 EST ---
The devel subpackage needs to provide also mupdf-static, as described in the
guidelines, since it contains only a static library:
%package devel
Summary:Development files for %{name}
Group: Development/Libraries
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
Provides: %{name}-static = %{version}-%{release}
rpmlint detects bad rights on libmupdf.a:
mupdf-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libmupdf.a
You should set its rights to 0644 in %install.
(In reply to comment #19)
Just a small comment: you should use %{_prefix} instead of /usr explicitely:
make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install prefix=%{buildroot}/%{_prefix}
LIBDIR=%{buildroot}%{_libdir}
Don't forget this too ;)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674730] Review Request: qt-gstreamer - C++ bindings for GStreamer with a Qt-style API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674730 Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||pikachu.2...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pikachu.2...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com 2011-02-07 04:39:11 EST --- I will review this 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669311 --- Comment #28 from Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net 2011-02-07 04:52:15 EST --- Fixed http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/mupdf/mupdf-0.7-6.fc15.src.rpm http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/mupdf/mupdf.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669311
--- Comment #29 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com 2011-02-07
05:45:52 EST ---
At line 90 of your .spec:
%attr(0644,root,root.-) %{_libdir}/libmupdf.a
Using %attr is maybe excessive. Calling « chmod 0644
%{buildroot}%{_libdir}/libmupdf.a » in %install should be safer and more
simple.
Once this last issue fixed, I will (at last!) approve this 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 675689] New: Review Request: perl-Test-Log-Dispatch - Test what you are logging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-Log-Dispatch - Test what you are logging https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675689 Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-Log-Dispatch - Test what you are logging Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rc040...@freenet.de QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Test-Log-Dispatch.spec SRPM URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Test-Log-Dispatch-0.03-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Test::Log::Dispatch is a Log::Dispatch object that keeps track of everything logged to it in memory, and provides convenient tests against what has been logged. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 651613] Review Request: haddock - Haskell documentation tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=651613 Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #18 from Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com 2011-02-07 06:07:00 EST --- F15 build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=217316 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669311 --- Comment #30 from Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net 2011-02-07 06:04:44 EST --- fixed Use tHe same links. Koji ok. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2766703 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671024] Review Request: wallpaperd - Background setter supporting random images and per-workspace images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671024 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 671024] Review Request: wallpaperd - Background setter supporting random images and per-workspace images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671024 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 06:10:08 EST --- wallpaperd-0.2.0-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wallpaperd-0.2.0-2.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 651656] Review Request: ghc-ltk - A UI toolkit for Leksah
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=651656 --- Comment #1 from Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com 2011-02-07 06:18:20 EST --- I will update the spec file to cabal2spec 0.22.4 and provide the new links. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671024] Review Request: wallpaperd - Background setter supporting random images and per-workspace images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671024 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 06:26:52 EST --- wallpaperd-0.2.0-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wallpaperd-0.2.0-2.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674180] Review Request: knights - A chess board for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674180
--- Comment #3 from Julian Aloofi julian.fed...@googlemail.com 2011-02-07
07:50:22 EST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Here are some initial comments/questions before the review.
Thanks for reviewing it!
- I think the homepage in your spec file is wrong. It seems that there was a
rewrite of Knights and your sources are provided by
http://opendesktop.org/content/show.php?content=122046
kde-apps.org is a service run by opendesktop.org, so this is basically the same
page as far as I understand.
- You might want to consider to use macros like %{name} in the Source0 tag,
too. This will save you some work later on!
Good suggestion.
- The headers of the source files state:
GNU General Public License [...]; either version 2 of
the License or (at your option) version 3 or any later version
accepted by the membership of KDE e.V.
so GPLv3+ is somehow an oversimplification, isn't it?
Probably yes. I'll try and find other applications with these licensing terms
in Fedora and see what they did, if I can't find any I'll send a mail to Fedora
legal.
- Concerning Licensing: The source file contains no file containing the
license
text (e.g. COPYING), it is best to ask upstream to change this.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
I'll tell upstream about it, missed that :)
- Why are you not using make %{?_smp_mflags} ? Did I miss something?
Oh, they should be there of course. I'll add 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 675705] New: Review Request: rubygem-tilt - Generic interface to multiple Ruby template engines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rubygem-tilt - Generic interface to multiple Ruby template engines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675705 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-tilt - Generic interface to multiple Ruby template engines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: vondr...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-tilt.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-tilt-1.2.2-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Generic interface to multiple Ruby template engines Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2766960 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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] Review Request: knights - A chess board for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674180 --- Comment #4 from Julian Aloofi julian.fed...@googlemail.com 2011-02-07 09:09:27 EST --- - The headers of the source files state: GNU General Public License [...]; either version 2 of the License or (at your option) version 3 or any later version accepted by the membership of KDE e.V. so GPLv3+ is somehow an oversimplification, isn't it? Probably yes. I'll try and find other applications with these licensing terms in Fedora and see what they did, if I can't find any I'll send a mail to Fedora legal. I've spotted the license in Yakuake as well, and it doesn't have any special stuff in the License: field, so I guess this is OK. Here are the latest packages so far: Spec URL: http://julian.fedorapeople.org/knights/knights.spec SRPM URL: http://julian.fedorapeople.org/knights/knights-2.2.0-2.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 646610] Rename review: drupal-views - drupal6-views
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646610 --- Comment #23 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-02-07 09:30:35 EST --- Noted, 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 646611] Rename review: drupal-cck - drupal6-cck
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646611 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 646611] Rename review: drupal-cck - drupal6-cck
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646611 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 09:29:27 EST --- drupal6-views-2.12-2.el6,drupal6-cck-2.9-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-views-2.12-2.el6,drupal6-cck-2.9-1.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 646610] Rename review: drupal-views - drupal6-views
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646610 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 09:29:32 EST --- drupal6-views-2.12-2.el6,drupal6-cck-2.9-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-views-2.12-2.el6,drupal6-cck-2.9-1.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 646611] Rename review: drupal-cck - drupal6-cck
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646611 --- Comment #24 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-02-07 09:30:27 EST --- Noted, 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 646610] Rename review: drupal-views - drupal6-views
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646610 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 646611] Rename review: drupal-cck - drupal6-cck
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646611 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 09:29:39 EST --- drupal6-views-2.12-2.el5,drupal6-cck-2.9-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-views-2.12-2.el5,drupal6-cck-2.9-1.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 646610] Rename review: drupal-views - drupal6-views
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646610 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 09:29:44 EST --- drupal6-views-2.12-2.el5,drupal6-cck-2.9-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-views-2.12-2.el5,drupal6-cck-2.9-1.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675478] Review Request: gprbuild - Ada project builder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675478 --- Comment #4 from Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net 2011-02-07 09:36:58 EST --- Fixed issue with gcc-4.6.0 (rawhide) SPEC: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/gprbuild/gprbuild.spec SRPM: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/gprbuild/gprbuild-2010-3.fc14.src.rpm mock: ok -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675726] New: Review Request: cdm - Very minimalistic display manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: cdm - Very minimalistic display manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675726 Summary: Review Request: cdm - Very minimalistic display manager Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mihkule...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/cdm.spec SRPM URL: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2767054name=cdm-0.5.3-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Small login manager. Written in pure bash, CDM has no other dependencies, yet supports multiple users/sessions and can start virtually any DE/WM. CDM can replace slim in ultra small environments. Koji build ok. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675726] Review Request: cdm - Very minimalistic display manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675726 Mikhail Kulemin mihkule...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675402] Review Request: qpass - password manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675402
--- Comment #5 from Mateusz Piękos mateuszpie...@gmail.com 2011-02-07
09:53:01 EST ---
Everything should be ok now. I forgot about %{_datadir}/%{name}/ while I was
doing changes previously. Here are new:
SPEC: http://qpass.sourceforge.net/qpass.spec
SRPM:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/qpass/packages/Fedora/qpass-1.0.1-3.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 675726] Review Request: cdm - Very minimalistic display manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675726 Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pa...@zhukoff.net --- Comment #1 from Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net 2011-02-07 09:57:08 EST --- few comments: -- you should NOT point bash to Requires: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 -- if you don't plan package for EPEL you should not point BuildRoot and clean sections; -- you SHOULD point full URL to Source (vendor doen't prohibit it) http://cdm.ghost1227.com/repo/cdm-latest.tar.gz or http://cdm.ghost1227.com/repo/cdm-0.5.3.tar.gz -- you SHOULD include README (create it) and COPYING (license text http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text) to your package. You can include CHANGELOG too. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669311
Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #31 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com 2011-02-07
10:13:20 EST ---
Here is the review :)
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
-OK, no significant warnings
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
-OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
-OK
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
-OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
-OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
-OK
MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for
the package must be included in %doc.
-OK
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
-OK
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
-OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
-OK, md5sum = 83adc4d14eb17835df791a9a0d1e8fa9
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
-OK
MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
-N/A
MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
-OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
-N/A
MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files
(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
-N/A
MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
-OK
MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
-N/A
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
OK
MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
-OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
-OK
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
-OK
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
-OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
-N/A
MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of
the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
-OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
-OK
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
-OK
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
-N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}.
-OK
MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
-OK
MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
-OK
MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
-OK
MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
-OK
This package is 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669311 --- Comment #33 from Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net 2011-02-07 10:18:23 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mupdf Short Description: A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit Owners: landgraf Branches: F-13 F-14 InitialCC: -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669311 --- Comment #32 from Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net 2011-02-07 10:17:00 EST --- Thank you for review. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669311 Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674929] Review Request: sh-elf-binutils - Cross Compiling GNU binutils targeted at sh-elf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674929 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 10:21:38 EST --- sh-elf-binutils-2.21-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sh-elf-binutils-2.21-1.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 674929] Review Request: sh-elf-binutils - Cross Compiling GNU binutils targeted at sh-elf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674929 John W. Linville linvi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-02-07 10:21:03 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674930] Review Request: sh-elf-gcc - Cross Compiling GNU GCC targeted at sh-elf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674930 Bug 674930 depends on bug 674929, which changed state. Bug 674929 Summary: Review Request: sh-elf-binutils - Cross Compiling GNU binutils targeted at sh-elf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674929 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675726] Review Request: cdm - Very minimalistic display manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675726 --- Comment #3 from Mikhail Kulemin mihkule...@gmail.com 2011-02-07 10:25:35 EST --- Created attachment 477430 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=477430 New spec file for build 2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675726] Review Request: cdm - Very minimalistic display manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675726 --- Comment #2 from Mikhail Kulemin mihkule...@gmail.com 2011-02-07 10:24:05 EST --- Fixed Is README file neeeded? New srpm https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2767219name=cdm-0.5.3-2.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673485] Review Request: libldb - A schema-less, ldap like, API and database
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673485 Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||libldb-0.9.22-8.fc15 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-02-07 10:49:44 --- Comment #11 from Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com 2011-02-07 10:49:44 EST --- Built in rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674674] Review Request: python-zope-configuration - Zope Configuration Markup Language (ZCML)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674674 --- Comment #10 from Luke Macken lmac...@redhat.com 2011-02-07 12:28:39 EST --- Thank you for the review, Robin! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674676] Review Request: python-zope-deprecation - Zope 3 Deprecation Infrastructure
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674676 Luke Macken lmac...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Luke Macken lmac...@redhat.com 2011-02-07 12:31:10 EST --- Thank you for the review, Robin! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 521909] Review Request: ne7ssh - SSH Library is a Secure Shell client software written in C++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521909 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #46 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 12:53:08 EST --- ne7ssh-1.3.2-10.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 ne7ssh'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ne7ssh-1.3.2-10.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 576431] Package Review: skipfish - Web application security scanner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576431 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|skipfish-1.84-0.1.b.fc14|skipfish-1.84-0.1.b.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 576431] Package Review: skipfish - Web application security scanner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576431 --- Comment #61 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 12:55:46 EST --- skipfish-1.84-0.1.b.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 576431] Package Review: skipfish - Web application security scanner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576431 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|skipfish-1.84-0.1.b.el6 |skipfish-1.84-0.1.b.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 576431] Package Review: skipfish - Web application security scanner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576431 --- Comment #60 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 12:54:39 EST --- skipfish-1.84-0.1.b.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 646611] Rename review: drupal-cck - drupal6-cck
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646611 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 12:53:59 EST --- drupal6-views-2.12-2.el5, drupal6-cck-2.9-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update drupal6-views drupal6-cck'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-views-2.12-2.el5,drupal6-cck-2.9-1.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668153] Review Request: openresolv - Management framework for resolv.conf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668153 Roy Marples r...@marples.name changed: What|Removed |Added CC||r...@marples.name --- Comment #8 from Roy Marples r...@marples.name 2011-02-07 12:58:08 EST --- Hi I'm upstream for openresolv and was asked to comment here, so here I am :) (In reply to comment #2) Does this work exactly like resolvconf? As far as the user interface is concerned, they are the same as openresolv was designed as a drop in replacement for resolvconf. We've had no end of problems with people using resolvconf with NetworkManager, and it's usually fixed by just removing resolvconf entirely. Ubuntu doesn't even install resolvconf by default anymore. One of my reasons for writing it :) Good idea but poorly implemented. No doubt in the future someone will do better than me, but until then openresolv is the best at what it does. How is the final resolv.conf generated and what algorithm defines the priority of nameservers in the final file? It's entirely user configurable and quite well documented, but the default is pretty much this $configured $dynamic (exclude dynamics with metrics) $metric $sorted $configured is a user defined list, default lo lo[0-9]* $dynamic default is tap[0-9]* tun[0-9]* vpn vpn[0-9]* ppp[0-9]* ippp[0-9]* $metric is numerically ordered and configured by the calling program $sorted is just that So for example, if dhcpcd (which I am also upstream for) works on both wired and wireless interfaces the wired interface would be given a lower metric by default so openresolv would prefer this information. However, this is an extension to how resolvconf works so not much probably uses it other than dhcpcd right now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 646610] Rename review: drupal-views - drupal6-views
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646610 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 12:54:05 EST --- drupal6-views-2.12-2.el5, drupal6-cck-2.9-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update drupal6-views drupal6-cck'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-views-2.12-2.el5,drupal6-cck-2.9-1.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674180] Review Request: knights - A chess board for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674180 Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||martin.giesek...@uos.de --- Comment #5 from Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de 2011-02-07 13:11:46 EST --- I'd say the license is GPLv2 or GPLv3 (plus a short comment about the mentioned restriction regarding later versions). GPLv3+ doesn't fit here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668153] Review Request: openresolv - Management framework for resolv.conf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668153 --- Comment #9 from Roy Marples r...@marples.name 2011-02-07 13:32:26 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) Second, the fact that all resolvconf implementations use the network interface names as an ordering and tracking mechanism is completely wrong, since what you want to do for priority here has nothing to do with the interface name, and everything to do with the network you're connecting to, which is independent of the interface name that's connecting to that network. Plus interface names can be anything. Essentially, using a resolvconf framework does not play well with an actual dynamic system. I think I answered that above. Third, resolvconf simply cannot handle bad ordering, if a program crashes or otherwise does not remove its configuration. This is correct, but hardly earth shattering either. The limitation of 3 libc resolvers is of note, but then a more powerful local resolver such as unbound, dnsmasq or bind can be configured for a much larger number and probably has better failover. openresolv can configure these quite easily with minimal user configuration required. Of course, I expect quality systems such as RedHat not to be shipping programs that crash or fail to function correctly which makes this a non issue ;) So I'm kind of curious what the motivations for this are, and what problems a resolvconf implementation would actually solve? resolvconf provides a common ground for many things updating resolv.conf(5) and optionally configuring more powerful local resolvers. openresolv is such an implementation and requires a POSIX userland and shell, ie no external 3rd party libraries. You, on the other hand, maintain NetworkManager, which granted can maintain resolv.conf(5) in a similar vain so it's natural that you are hostile towards it. However NetworkManager requires many things which are only found on Linux based systems and requires GTK+ as well as a few others. And last I checked it had no provision for local resolvers other than libc. At this point you may be wondering why local resolvers? Well, the answer is quite simple - openresolv has an extension to mark the interface resolv.conf as private. So consider this eth0: search foo.com nameserver 1.2.3.4 vpn0: (marked private) search bar.org nameserver 1.2.3.5 openresolv would configure the local resolver (where possible) to send query for bar.org to 1.2.3.5 and any other query to 1.2.3.4 Very handy for work VPN 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 659082] Review Request: redland-bindings - language bindings for redland
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=659082
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Vander Stichele tho...@apestaart.org 2011-02-07
14:04:43 EST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Thanks for the update. It is now in much better shape. I still have a few
questions though:
? Do we really need these:
%{?!pybasever:%{expand:%%define pybasever %(%{__python} -c import sys ;
print sys.version[:3])}}
%if %{pybasever} == 2.3
Requires: python-abi = 2.3
%endif
Python-2.3 is a bit too old. I don't even remember what Fedora version came
with it. This is not a blocker but I am curious why you have this in the
specfile.
ok, removing.
! php_extdir doesn't match the guideline
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#PECL_Modules
ok, changed.
? How about instead of
%attr(664,root,root) %doc perl/example.pl
just
%doc perl/example.pl
by default it is executable, so rpmlint complains.
? Why is this file a ghost?
%ghost %{python_sitearch}/RDF.pyo
removed.
! I am still not sure how to handle the common %doc files. I will send an
email
to the packaging list. In case we need a common package, we will probably need
a versioned requires, such as
Requires: redland-bindings = %{version}-%{release}
in the subpackages.
I don't see why it needs to be versioned ? If this package only contains
docs/license info then it's not that important IMO.
FWIW rpmlint still errors about a package without any binaries.
The licensing situation is cleared up in a commit, so I adapted the license
field too. Will build new binaries.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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] Review Request: knights - A chess board for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674180 --- Comment #6 from Julian Aloofi julian.fed...@googlemail.com 2011-02-07 14:10:06 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) I'd say the license is GPLv2 or GPLv3 (plus a short comment about the mentioned restriction regarding later versions). GPLv3+ doesn't fit here. I would just change it to GPLv2+ now. As pointed out, Yakuake does that and has the same licensing terms. Or is there so much uncertainty that a mail to le...@lists.fpo would be preferred? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675798] New: Review Request: liblzf - Small data compression library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: liblzf - Small data compression library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675798 Summary: Review Request: liblzf - Small data compression library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: steve.tray...@cern.ch QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/liblzf/liblzf.spec SRPM URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/liblzf/liblzf-3.6-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: LibLZF is a very small data compression library. It consists of only two .c and two .h files and is very easy to incorporate into your own programs. The compression algorithm is very, very fast, yet still written in portable C. (Note this library is bundled with php-pecl-lzf, a bug can go in once this make progress) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675798] Review Request: liblzf - Small data compression library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675798 Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||665853 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 665853] Review Request: h5py - A Python interface to the HDF5 library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853 Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||675798 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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] Review Request: knights - A chess board for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674180 --- Comment #7 from Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de 2011-02-07 14:42:38 EST --- To my limited legal knowledge, GPLv2+ is not quite correct here because of the given restriction. According to the copyright notice, only GPLv2 and GPLv3 have been approved while potential future GPL versions are still to be confirmed by the KDE team. GPLv2+ doesn't reflect this. But again, I'm not a legal expert. Maybe a question on the legal mailing list can shed some light 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 630198] Review Request: ghc-safe - Library for safe (pattern match free) functions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630198 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 14:52:46 EST --- ghc-safe-0.3-1.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 630198] Review Request: ghc-safe - Library for safe (pattern match free) functions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630198 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||ghc-safe-0.3-1.fc14 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-02-07 14:52:51 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648100] Review Request: ghc-xml - A simple XML library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648100 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 14:53:02 EST --- ghc-xml-1.3.7-1.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 648100] Review Request: ghc-xml - A simple XML library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648100 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||ghc-xml-1.3.7-1.fc13 Resolution||ERRATA Flag|needinfo?(maths...@gmail.co | |m) | Last Closed||2011-02-07 14:53:08 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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] Review Request: knights - A chess board for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674180 --- Comment #8 from Julian Aloofi julian.fed...@googlemail.com 2011-02-07 14:54:24 EST --- I'll send them a mail now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648098] Review Request: ghc-zlib-bindings - Low-level bindings to the zlib package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648098 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 14:56:20 EST --- ghc-zlib-bindings-0.0.0-1.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 648100] Review Request: ghc-xml - A simple XML library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648100 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ghc-xml-1.3.7-1.fc13|ghc-xml-1.3.7-1.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 648098] Review Request: ghc-zlib-bindings - Low-level bindings to the zlib package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648098 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 14:55:56 EST --- ghc-zlib-bindings-0.0.0-1.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 630224] Review Request: ghc-attempt - Concrete data type for handling extensible exceptions as failures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630224 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 14:57:29 EST --- ghc-attempt-0.3.0-1.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 648098] Review Request: ghc-zlib-bindings - Low-level bindings to the zlib package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648098 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ghc-zlib-bindings-0.0.0-1.f |ghc-zlib-bindings-0.0.0-1.f |c14 |c13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630224] Review Request: ghc-attempt - Concrete data type for handling extensible exceptions as failures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630224 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||ghc-attempt-0.3.0-1.fc14 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-02-07 14:54:23 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630261] Review Request: ghc-bytestring-nums - Parse numeric literals from ByteStrings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630261 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||ghc-bytestring-nums-0.3.2-1 ||.fc14 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-02-07 14:54:59 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648100] Review Request: ghc-xml - A simple XML library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648100 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 14:54:30 EST --- ghc-xml-1.3.7-1.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 630204] Review Request: ghc-mtlparse - Haskell mtlparse library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630204 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 14:58:29 EST --- ghc-mtlparse-0.1.1-1.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 671024] Review Request: wallpaperd - Background setter supporting random images and per-workspace images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671024 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 14:57:13 EST --- wallpaperd-0.2.0-2.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 wallpaperd'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wallpaperd-0.2.0-2.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 630261] Review Request: ghc-bytestring-nums - Parse numeric literals from ByteStrings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630261 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 14:54:54 EST --- ghc-bytestring-nums-0.3.2-1.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 630224] Review Request: ghc-attempt - Concrete data type for handling extensible exceptions as failures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630224 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 14:54:17 EST --- ghc-attempt-0.3.0-1.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 630224] Review Request: ghc-attempt - Concrete data type for handling extensible exceptions as failures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630224 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ghc-attempt-0.3.0-1.fc14|ghc-attempt-0.3.0-1.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 648098] Review Request: ghc-zlib-bindings - Low-level bindings to the zlib package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648098 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||ghc-zlib-bindings-0.0.0-1.f ||c14 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-02-07 14:56:00 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674674] Review Request: python-zope-configuration - Zope Configuration Markup Language (ZCML)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674674 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 14:55:50 EST --- python-zope-configuration-3.7.2-1.fc13, python-zope-deprecation-3.4.0-1.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 python-zope-configuration python-zope-deprecation'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-zope-configuration-3.7.2-1.fc13,python-zope-deprecation-3.4.0-1.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630204] Review Request: ghc-mtlparse - Haskell mtlparse library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630204 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 15:01:58 EST --- ghc-mtlparse-0.1.1-1.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 630198] Review Request: ghc-safe - Library for safe (pattern match free) functions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630198 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 14:59:37 EST --- ghc-safe-0.3-1.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 630274] Review Request: ghc-blaze-builder - Builder to efficiently append text
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630274 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 14:58:50 EST --- ghc-blaze-builder-0.2.1.4-1.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 630204] Review Request: ghc-mtlparse - Haskell mtlparse library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630204 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ghc-mtlparse-0.1.1-1.fc13 |ghc-mtlparse-0.1.1-1.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 630274] Review Request: ghc-blaze-builder - Builder to efficiently append text
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630274 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 15:01:33 EST --- ghc-blaze-builder-0.2.1.4-1.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 630274] Review Request: ghc-blaze-builder - Builder to efficiently append text
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630274 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ghc-blaze-builder-0.2.1.4-1 |ghc-blaze-builder-0.2.1.4-1 |.fc13 |.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 630198] Review Request: ghc-safe - Library for safe (pattern match free) functions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630198 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ghc-safe-0.3-1.fc14 |ghc-safe-0.3-1.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630261] Review Request: ghc-bytestring-nums - Parse numeric literals from ByteStrings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630261 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 14:59:06 EST --- ghc-bytestring-nums-0.3.2-1.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 630204] Review Request: ghc-mtlparse - Haskell mtlparse library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630204 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||ghc-mtlparse-0.1.1-1.fc13 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-02-07 14:58:33 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630261] Review Request: ghc-bytestring-nums - Parse numeric literals from ByteStrings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630261 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ghc-bytestring-nums-0.3.2-1 |ghc-bytestring-nums-0.3.2-1 |.fc14 |.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 630274] Review Request: ghc-blaze-builder - Builder to efficiently append text
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630274 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||ghc-blaze-builder-0.2.1.4-1 ||.fc13 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-02-07 14:58:55 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664624] Review Request: libdmapsharing3 - A DMAP client and server library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664624 Cosimo Cecchi ccec...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ccec...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Cosimo Cecchi ccec...@redhat.com 2011-02-07 15:05:51 EST --- Note that this would be needed also by Rhythmbox now, which has its DAAP plugin disabled in the rawhide package now, because of the missing dep. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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] Review Request: knights - A chess board for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674180 --- Comment #9 from Golo Fuchert packa...@golotop.de 2011-02-07 15:16:33 EST --- I agree with Martin on this. I think this should be clarified, especially since it seems to affect other packages (like Yakuake) as well. Maybe after clarification this is an issue for the Fedora-packaging mailing list? Concerning the homepage, you are absolutely right. I somehow ended up on the old homepage (http://kde-apps.org/content/show.php?content=20534) and was confused. 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 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675388 --- Comment #4 from Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net 2011-02-07 15:26:30 EST --- http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/xmlada/xmlada-3.2.1-5.fc14.src.rpm http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/xmlada/xmlada.spec fix spec errors (move *.so to -devel) -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673545] Review Request: python26-virtualenv - Tool to create isolated Python environments
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673545
Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||steve.tray...@cern.ch
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|steve.tray...@cern.ch
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 2011-02-07 16:06:31
EST ---
- Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
Yes python26-virtualenv, source bundle called virtualenv.
- Spec file matches base package name.
Yes
- Spec has consistant macro usage.
NO $RPM_BUILD_ROOT vs %{buildroot}
- Meets Packaging Guidelines.
YES.
- License
MIT.
- License field in spec matches
It does
- License file included in package
YES docs/license.txt
- Spec in American English
YES , indeed it is.
- Spec is legible.
Yes it is.
- Sources match upstream md5sum:
$ md5sum virtualenv-1.5.1.tar.gz ../SOURCES/virtualenv-1.5.1.tar.gz
3daa1f449d5d2ee03099484cecb1c2b7 virtualenv-1.5.1.tar.gz
3daa1f449d5d2ee03099484cecb1c2b7 ../SOURCES/virtualenv-1.5.1.tar.gz
- Package needs ExcludeArch
YES builds in koji.
- BuildRequires correct
YES
- Spec handles locales/find_lang
NONE
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
NONE
- Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
YES
- Package has a correct %clean section.
YES
- Package has correct buildroo
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
- Package is code or permissible content.
- Doc subpackage needed/used.
Not needd
- Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
Fine
- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
No devel.
- Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
None
- .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
None
- .so files in -devel subpackage.
None
- -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
None
- .la files are removed.
- Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
None
- Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
Koji
- Package has no duplicate files in %files.
None
- Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
No.
- Package owns all the directories it creates.
rpmlint:
$ rpmlint python26-virtualenv.spec
/var/lib/mock/epel-5-x86_64/result/python26-virtualenv-1.5.1-2.el5.*
sh: /usr/bin/python2.6: No such file or directory
python26-virtualenv.noarch: E: devel-dependency python26-devel
python26-virtualenv.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workingenv
- workingmen, workingwomen, workingman
python26-virtualenv.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary virtualenv-2.6
python26-virtualenv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workingenv -
workingmen, workingwomen, workingman
sh: /usr/bin/python2.6: No such file or directory
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
Problems:
1) $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} present.
2) I find all the
sh: /usr/bin/python2.6: No such file or directory
given the .spec file is fairly hardcoded to python2.6 just hardcode the line
containing 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 674595] Review Request: sanlock - a shared disk lock manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674595 Dave Teigland teigl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG Last Closed||2011-02-07 16:28:57 --- Comment #1 from Dave Teigland teigl...@redhat.com 2011-02-07 16:28:57 EST --- Fabio will reopen this himself so he can take over the majority of the work. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671024] Review Request: wallpaperd - Background setter supporting random images and per-workspace images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671024 Germán Racca gra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-02-07 17:25:46 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 517462] Review Request: voicedata-zh_TW-gcin-EdwardLiu - Chinese voice data from gcin project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517462 Ruediger Landmann r.landm...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|r.landm...@redhat.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674180] Review Request: knights - A chess board for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674180 --- Comment #10 from Julian Aloofi julian.fed...@googlemail.com 2011-02-07 18:00:10 EST --- I got a reply from Fedora legal, and the appropriate License would be GPLv2 and GPLv3 with a comment pointing out that the KDE e.V. might change this in the future. So here are the new packages: Spec URL: http://julian.fedorapeople.org/knights/knights.spec SRPM URL: http://julian.fedorapeople.org/knights/knights-2.2.0-3.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668243] Review Request: libqb - An IPC library for high performance servers.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668243
Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i...@ianweller.org
AssignedTo|fdini...@redhat.com |i...@ianweller.org
--- Comment #15 from Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org 2011-02-07 19:03:16 EST ---
Hi Angus,
I've been asked by Robyn Bergeron to sponsor you for this package, and I am
willing to do so. Just had a few questions:
- Do you have any other pending package reviews, or have you done any informal
reviews of other packages?
- In your spec, you document three variables at the top; are they just not set
in
this release of the spec? (I would recommend having the definitions for each
of
the variables in that comment block, but just commented out when they are not
in use.)
- Also on those variables, please make sure that they follow the release tag
guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Release_Tag
At first glance, it appears that you may end up breaking some of those
guidelines if you're not careful.
- Did you make sure that there were no dependencies on other headers in the
devel
subpackage? The devel subpackage only requires pkgconfig.
- Instead of using %dir %{_includedir}/qb/ and listing each file in it
individually, clean up your %files list by just listing %{_includedir}/qb/ --
without the %dir command, it will include that directory and everything in
it.
Consider this a blocker.
(Because I'm willing to sponsor you, I'm assigning this request to me.)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668243] Review Request: libqb - An IPC library for high performance servers.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668243
--- Comment #16 from Angus Salkeld asalk...@redhat.com 2011-02-07 20:09:30
EST ---
(In reply to comment #15)
Hi Angus,
I've been asked by Robyn Bergeron to sponsor you for this package, and I am
willing to do so. Just had a few questions:
Cool, thanks!
- Do you have any other pending package reviews, or have you done any informal
reviews of other packages?
Nope, just this one.
- In your spec, you document three variables at the top; are they just not set
in
this release of the spec? (I would recommend having the definitions for each
of
the variables in that comment block, but just commented out when they are
not
in use.)
They are mainly used upstream, I am just trying to keep this and the upstream
in-sync as much as possible.
I tried adding them to the comment but had an rpmlint warning about having a
variable in a comment.
- Also on those variables, please make sure that they follow the release tag
guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Release_Tag
At first glance, it appears that you may end up breaking some of those
guidelines if you're not careful.
My idea was not to use these in the fedora release number.
(if doing an alpha release, I'll manually edit the Release string).
- Did you make sure that there were no dependencies on other headers in the
devel
subpackage? The devel subpackage only requires pkgconfig.
I believe so, we don't need std headers man do we?
Is here a way of checking? I have done rpmlint and koji builds without
problems.
- Instead of using %dir %{_includedir}/qb/ and listing each file in it
individually, clean up your %files list by just listing %{_includedir}/qb/
--
without the %dir command, it will include that directory and everything in
it.
OK, thanks - didn't know about that.
Consider this a blocker.
(Because I'm willing to sponsor you, I'm assigning this request to me.)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 668243] Review Request: libqb - An IPC library for high performance servers.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668243 --- Comment #17 from Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org 2011-02-07 21:17:35 EST --- (In reply to comment #16) (In reply to comment #15) - Did you make sure that there were no dependencies on other headers in the devel subpackage? The devel subpackage only requires pkgconfig. I believe so, we don't need std headers man do we? Is here a way of checking? I have done rpmlint and koji builds without problems. Well, the reason is so that when you use these header files in code, the compiler doesn't throw an error because an #include file couldn't be found. I ran the following (very very hacky) shell script from /usr/include in an extracted version of the RPM: for j in $(for i in $(grep -r '#include ' . | \ sed -e 's/.*#include \(.*\)$/\1/'); do find /usr/include | \ grep $i; done | less); do rpm -qf $j; done | grep -v kernel-headers | \ grep -v libstdc++-devel | grep -v glibc-headers (kernel-headers and glibc-headers are both deps for gcc; libstdc++-devel is a dep for gcc-g++, so those don't need to be included.) Nothing showed up in the output of that script, so I guess you're good. - Do you have any other pending package reviews, or have you done any informal reviews of other packages? Nope, just this one. If you have something else you need to package, I would recommend submitting that for review and having me take a look at it. My sponsoring you depends on how well I feel you understand the Fedora packaging guidelines. I think you've got a pretty good grasp on them, but I generally like to see more than one package from any submitter. (Alternatively, you can take any package review, do an informal review of it, and link to that bug here.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 448613] Review Request: perl-EV - Wrapper for the libev high-performance event loop library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448613 --- Comment #18 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-07 21:44:38 EST --- Bug #672153 has been fixed, the libev package now builds a libev-source subpackage that can be used to build this one: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2772434 Anybody up for finishing the review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
