[Bug 694718] New: Review Request: python-construct - Powerful declarative parser for binary data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-construct - Powerful declarative parser for binary data https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694718 Summary: Review Request: python-construct - Powerful declarative parser for binary data Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: justinn...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://www.win32.bravoserver.org/downloads/rpms/python-construct.spec SRPM URL: http://www.win32.bravoserver.org/downloads/rpms/python-construct-2.04-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Construct is a powerful declarative parser for binary data. This is my first package and I am looking for a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 694718] Review Request: python-construct - Powerful declarative parser for binary data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694718 Justin Noah justinn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||justinn...@gmail.com 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 590355] Review Request: golly - cellular automata simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590355 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-08 02:57:49 EDT --- golly-2.2-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golly-2.2-2.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 590355] Review Request: golly - cellular automata simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590355 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-08 02:57:13 EDT --- golly-2.2-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golly-2.2-2.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 590355] Review Request: golly - cellular automata simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590355 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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693425 --- Comment #5 from Panos Christeas x...@hellug.gr 2011-04-08 03:31:07 EDT --- Alec Leamas: that would be ideal for me. Please note that I /do/ expect corrections to be suggested on my proposal. Let's make some packaging that will install this beast and let it run out of the box! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226510] Merge Review: udev
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226510 --- Comment #25 from Harald Hoyer har...@redhat.com 2011-04-08 04:05:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #24) Did you push the changes? oops .. done :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693425 --- Comment #6 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 2011-04-08 04:06:35 EDT --- Created attachment 490726 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=490726 Informal review , first step Somewhat long review. This is still *very* informal, hopefully it can enter a more structured (and smaller) state at next iteration. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693425 --- Comment #7 from Panos Christeas x...@hellug.gr 2011-04-08 04:29:32 EDT --- Review acceptable. Expect next ver. of SPEC file(s) pretty soon. Draft Notes (answers): The wrong permissions should be fixed upstream, inside the tarballs. Trying to push that change there. There has been an alternative approach, of per-addon rpms, which would solve the complicated dependencies problem. See the 'modulize.py' script at my git repos. Hard dependency on Postgres shall only occur with the serverinit subpackage. Is there an objection? Will fix init script, however. Brb.. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693425 --- Comment #8 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 2011-04-08 05:38:16 EDT --- *** Bug 677639 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 677639] Review request: openerp-server (revisited)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=677639 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE Last Closed||2011-04-08 05:38:16 --- Comment #1 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 2011-04-08 05:38:16 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 693425 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693646] Review Request: apache-solr - Open source enterprise search platform from the Apache Lucene 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=693646 --- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2011-04-08 06:47:12 EDT --- Yes it was, but new release changed drastically, syncing with lucene project and requiring Lucene 3.x. Solr-1.4 is able to work with Lucene 2.x. Lucene 3 is up for review in another bug. But yes, future version of solr will be synced with lucene most probably. But for now I'd like to package this version. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693425 --- Comment #9 from Panos Christeas x...@hellug.gr 2011-04-08 07:25:46 EDT --- Basically, what I miss is a INSTALL (INSTALL.fedora?) file. I envision a simple doc, something like INSTALL ON A SINGLE HOST ... Create a openerp database user: # /etc/init.d/openerp-server db-add-user Make a basic test # /etc/init.d/openerp-server db-test Install certificate. If you already have a server certificate: # /etc/init.d/openerp-server certificate-install /path/to/certificate If you don't have a certificate, openerp can create a self-signed one for you: # /etc/init.d/openerp-server certificate-create Start openerp-server: # service openerp-server start ... (snip) Certainly interesting. The purpose of the -serverinit subpackage was this (it is an old concept): Suppose we want to provision a system (or image ;) ) with a default, ready to work, installation of OpenERP. This cannot involve any manual configuration steps by root/postgres/openerp user. It must just start, boot, and end up with an openerp client, from which the admin user will be able to create his first database. I appreciate that assumptions are not welcome in RPM packaging. That's why I have isolated these steps into the 'serverinit' package. So, at the end, you will have either a set of post-install steps (that will let you chose the db server, certificate etc), or an automated meta-package. In the meanwhile, I agree to move as much as possible inside the initscript (I didn't know that extra steps apart from start/stop/status were welcome in Fedora). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693798] Review Request: octave-image - Image processing for Octave
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693798
José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||jama...@fc.up.pt
--- Comment #1 from José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt 2011-04-08 07:35:27 EDT ---
I started the evaluation of this packages and my comments are at the end.
As soon as this is fixed we can pass to the other package it is probably easier
to fix this first.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
[x] : MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
[x] : MUST - Each %files section contains %defattr
[x] : MUST - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x] : MUST - Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=...
doesn't work.
[x] : MUST - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-] : MUST - %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[-] : MUST - Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using
desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application.
[-] : MUST - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] : MUST - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] : MUST - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[-] : MUST - License file installed when any subpackage combination is
installed.
[-] : MUST - The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] : MUST - No %config files under /usr.
[-] : MUST - Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] : MUST - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint octave-image-debuginfo-1.0.13-1.fc16.i686.rpm
octave-image-debuginfo.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/image-1.0.13/src/edtfunc.c
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint octave-image-1.0.13-1.fc16.i686.rpm
octave-image.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided octave-forge
octave-image.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/octave/packages/image-1.0.13/packinfo/.autoload
octave-image.i686: E: zero-length
/usr/share/octave/packages/image-1.0.13/packinfo/.autoload
octave-image.i686: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
rpmlint octave-image-1.0.13-1.fc16.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
MD5SUM upstream package : b2948a6d90cbd55f7b0a12fdf5da3b23
[x] : MUST - Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and
meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x] : MUST - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x] : MUST - Changelog in prescribed format.
[x] : MUST - Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x] : MUST - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-] : MUST - Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] : MUST - Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x] : MUST - Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x] : MUST - Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[-] : MUST - Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] : 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 is included in %doc.
[x] : MUST - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x] : MUST - Package consistently uses macros. instead of hard-coded directory
names.
[x] : MUST - Package meets the Packaging
[Bug 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693425 --- Comment #10 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 2011-04-08 07:50:45 EDT --- Created attachment 490768 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=490768 openerp-server.spec, another variant for reference. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693425 --- Comment #11 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 2011-04-08 07:51:36 EDT --- Created attachment 490769 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=490769 openerp-client.spec, another variant for reference -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693425 --- Comment #12 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 2011-04-08 07:52:32 EDT --- Created attachment 490770 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=490770 openerp-web.spec, another variant for reference -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693425 --- Comment #13 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 2011-04-08 08:29:44 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) OK, as I get it, there are some variants 1) User already knows what to do, and installs openerp-server-init. 2) User doesn't know what to do, installs openerp-server. She reads INSTALL, and there are two options: - Iff a lot of conditions, just install openerp-server-init to complete installation. - Else, use the following steps to complete install Manual steps. One problem is that guidelines recommends against setting start level (chkconfig) in spec file, and strongly advices against actually starting the service(s). So some manual steps seems to be required anyway. Personally I'm happy as long as there is an INSTALL, and the package doesn't have a verb as name :) So, at the end, you will have either a set of post-install steps (that will let you chose the db server, certificate etc), or an automated meta-package. In the meanwhile, I agree to move as much as possible inside the initscript (I didn't know that extra steps apart from start/stop/status were welcome in Fedora). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226510] Merge Review: udev
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226510 Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||ERRATA Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Last Closed||2011-04-08 08:59:22 --- Comment #26 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-04-08 08:59:22 EDT --- Ah, there we are. Thanks so much! APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 676129] Review Request: qconf - Allows you to have a nice configure script for your qmake-based 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=676129
Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl |mschm...@redhat.com
--- Comment #20 from Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com 2011-04-08 09:03:21
EDT ---
rpmlint output:
qconf.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) qmake - make, quake, q make
qconf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US qmake - make, quake, q make
qconf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autotools - auto tools,
auto-tools, autopilots
qconf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unix - UNIX, Unix, uni
qconf.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) qmake - make, quake, q make
qconf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US qmake - make, quake, q
make
qconf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autotools - auto tools,
auto-tools, autopilots
qconf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unix - UNIX, Unix, uni
qconf.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/qconf/conf/conf4.h
qconf.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/qconf/conf/conf4.cpp
qconf.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/qconf/conf/conf.cpp
qconf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qconf
The warnings about spelling errors are bogus.
The missing manual page is unfortunate, but not a blocker.
The devel-file-in-non-devel-package warnings are false positives.
If I understand qconf correctly, the files are necessary to its operation.
Formal checks:
OK means the package matches the guideline
?? means unclear status, needs explanation
-- means the guideline it not relevant
ERR signifies a problem
Checking with respect to the Packaging Guidelines
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines):
OK - naming
OK - version and release
OK - licensing
GPLv2+ with exceptions because the sources have the usual
GPLv2-or-later header and the COPYING file gives an extra
permission on top of GPLv2 permissions.
OK - no pre-built binaries
OK - spec legible
OK - no architecture excluded
OK - filesystem layout
OK - rpmlint, see above
OK - changelog
OK - tags
OK - BuildRoot tag, not used, not necessary
OK - %clean, not used, not necessary
OK - Requires, no explicit ones
OK - BuildRequires
OK - summary and description
OK - encoding, ASCII
OK - documentation
OK - compiler flags
OK - debuginfo packages
-- - devel packages
-- - requiring base package
-- - static libraries
OK - no duplication of system libraries
OK - rpath, none
-- - configuration files
-- - initscripts
-- - desktop files
OK - macros
-- - %global preferred over %define
-- - locale files
OK - timestamps
OK - parallel make
-- - scriptlets
-- - conditional deps
OK - relocatable packages, not
OK - code vs content
OK - file and dir ownership
-- - users and groups
-- - web apps
ERR- conflicts:
- the package gridengine also provides /usr/bin/qconf
- You'll need to resolve somehow. Follow the hints at:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Conflicting_Files
OK - no kernel modules
OK - no files under /srv
OK - no bundling of multiple projects
?? - patches should have an upstream bug link or comment
- it is unclear to me whether qconf-1.4-optflags.patch is going to be
Fedora-specific forever or if it's going to be resolved in the upstream
project.
OK - use of epochs, none
-- - symlinks
-- - man pages, would be nice to have though
-- - test suites
-- - tmpfiles.d
-- - application-specific guidelines
Steps of the Review Guidelines
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines):
OK - rpmlint
OK - Naming Guidelines
OK - spec name matches package %{name}
ERR- Packaging Guidelines, see above
OK - approved license
OK - license tag matches
OK - COPYING in %doc
OK - US English
OK - legible
OK - source checksum, sha256sum:
212bce09a585a22cf4b9e1a881e8f79c32a82e5cb8ea7f99a056a50faf809af8
qconf-1.4.tar.bz2
OK - builds on all archs
OK - BuildRequires
-- - locales
-- - ldconfig
OK - no bundling
-- - not relocatable
OK - file ownership
OK - no duplicate files
OK - sane permissions
OK - macros
OK - code or content
-- - large doc
OK - %doc not essential to runtime
OK - header files to be in -devel
- the headers included in the package are needed for its operation
-- - no static libs
-- - dynamic libs
-- - devel packages' reqs
-- - *.la files
-- - desktop files for GUI apps
OK - no ownership of other packages' files
OK - valid filenames
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 681393] Review Request: perl-Nagios-Plugin-WWW-Mechanize - Login to a web page as a user and get data as a Nagios plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=681393 --- Comment #17 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-08 10:02:15 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630205] Review Request: ghc-regexpr - Regular expression like Perl/Ruby in Haskell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630205 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-08 10:13:21 EDT --- ghc-regexpr-0.5.3-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-regexpr-0.5.3-2.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 690282] Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690282
--- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-04-08 10:22:05 EDT ---
Re: 17, fixed 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Not sure what you intend for 1, I'm an
experienced packager but not of Java bits, so I may need some handholding. :)
Re: 18, fixed everything, but I can't comment on the patches since I didn't
make them. :)
But now it won't build. Do we really need the -Duser.home=%{_topdir}/SOURCES?
That seems like it might break in mock. . .
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693425 --- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-08 10:34:43 EDT --- Please don't attach reviews, thanks. Just include them inline so we can actually see 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 630205] Review Request: ghc-regexpr - Regular expression like Perl/Ruby in Haskell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630205 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-08 10:31:22 EDT --- ghc-regexpr-0.5.3-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-regexpr-0.5.3-1.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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693425
--- Comment #14 from Panos Christeas x...@hellug.gr 2011-04-08 10:32:12 EDT
---
About the %{NoDisplay} macro:
Some months/years ago, we did have the case that the shebang was missing from
python scripts. Usually, the first command to appear on a .py file is:
rpm -q -f $(which import) # ;) guess what it does..
So, I had added 'define %{NoDisplay} DISPLAY= ' to block that case and make
sure we have an error in such a case.
WDYT? Do we still need to enforce such a rule? Or clean up the %{NoDisplay}
references?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690282] Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690282 --- Comment #20 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-04-08 10:33:30 EDT --- BUILD FAILED /home/limb/rpmbuild/BUILD/jogl/make/build.xml:1562: The following error occurred while executing this line: /home/limb/rpmbuild/BUILD/jogl/make/build.xml:487: The following error occurred while executing this line: /home/limb/rpmbuild/BUILD/gluegen/make/build.xml:458: The following error occurred while executing this line: /home/limb/rpmbuild/BUILD/gluegen/make/build.xml:378: The following error occurred while executing this line: /home/limb/rpmbuild/BUILD/gluegen/make/gluegen-cpptasks.xml:400: suncc is not a legal value for this attribute Total time: 52 seconds error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.nUFlRi (%build) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693425 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ve...@inwind.it --- Comment #16 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-08 10:35:56 EDT --- *** Bug 641261 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 641261] Review Request: openerp-server - Open Source ERP Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641261 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE Last Closed||2011-04-08 10:35:56 --- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-08 10:35:56 EDT --- It appears that 693425 will proceed and this one hasn't received a response from the submitter since October. So I'll go ahead and just close this out. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 693425 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693425 --- Comment #17 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-08 10:36:14 EDT --- *** Bug 641271 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 641261] Review Request: openerp-server - Open Source ERP Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641261 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 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 641261] Review Request: openerp-server - Open Source ERP Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641261 Bug 641261 depends on bug 641271, which changed state. Bug 641271 Summary: Review Request: openerp-client - Open Source ERP Client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641271 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||DUPLICATE Status|ASSIGNED|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 641271] Review Request: openerp-client - Open Source ERP Client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641271 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Resolution||DUPLICATE Last Closed||2011-04-08 10:36:14 --- Comment #11 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-08 10:36:14 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 693425 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693425 --- Comment #19 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 2011-04-08 10:54:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) Please don't attach reviews, thanks. Just include them inline so we can actually see them. I will, as soon as it's not a multi-page document, hopefully at next iteration :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693425
--- Comment #18 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 2011-04-08 10:50:55
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #14)
WDYT? Do we still need to enforce such a rule? Or clean up the %{NoDisplay}
references?
Thx for explanation. I think the %{NoDisplay} should be cleaned up. Legibility,
don't hide other bugs...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 541463] Review Request: garmin-sync - Download data from Garmin fitness computers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=541463 --- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-08 11:44:50 EDT --- As far as I can tell, there have still been no post-F12 builds of this package. If there's something I can help you with, please let me know. Otherwise I guess I'll go ahead and get this re-orphaned and blocked. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 552113] Review Request: wiiuse - library to use wiiremotes via bluetooth
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=552113 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: libwiiuse - |Review Request: wiiuse - |library to use wiiremotes |library to use wiiremotes |via bluetooth |via bluetooth -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 552113] Review Request: wiiuse - library to use wiiremotes via bluetooth
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=552113 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-04-08 11:46:41 --- Comment #23 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-08 11:46:41 EDT --- I see no reason to keep this ticket open as the package is in rawhide and F15. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690728] Review Request: Nitrate - A test case management system written in Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690728 Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||michel+...@sylvestre.me AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|michel+...@sylvestre.me Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693798] Review Request: octave-image - Image processing for Octave
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693798
--- Comment #2 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com 2011-04-08 12:09:33
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Issues:
[!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent.
octave-image-debuginfo.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/image-1.0.13/src/edtfunc.c
Fixed.
octave-image.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided octave-forge
octave-image.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/octave/packages/image-1.0.13/packinfo/.autoload
octave-image.i686: E: zero-length
/usr/share/octave/packages/image-1.0.13/packinfo/.autoload
octave-image.i686: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
[!] : SHOULD - Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm
-q --requires).
Provides: octave(api) = api-v47+}
Ah, typo in the macros. Will get a new octave package out asap.
Interestingly, rpm/yum appears to ignore the }.. I could install via yum just
fine.
Requires: (strange, are this used?)
__bilateral__.oct()(64bit)
__bwdist.oct()(64bit)
bwfill.oct()(64bit)
bwlabel.oct()(64bit)
__custom_gaussian_smoothing__.oct()(64bit)
deriche.oct()(64bit)
graycomatrix.oct()(64bit)
hough_line.oct()(64bit)
__imboundary__.oct()(64bit)
nonmax_supress.oct()(64bit)
rotate_scale.oct()(64bit)
__spatial_filtering__.oct()(64bit)
Well, these are the octave interfaces that are installed. I think we can leave
them. They already have their own namespace of a sort (.oct).
Regarding the rpmlint warnings:
Is the obsolete really necessary? (It is a genuine question and I accept your
answer). It just seems strange to see this for a package that has almost two
years.
yes, to provide an upgrade path from octave-forge in F14.
With respect to the dangerous-command-in-%preun I think that this is a false
positive so it can be ignored (unless I am missing something obvious).
Well, there is an rm in the %octave_pkg_preun macro:
%octave_pkg_preun \
rm %{octpkgdir}/packinfo/on_uninstall.m \
if [ -e %{octpkgdir}/packinfo/on_uninstall.m.orig ]; then \
mv %{octpkgdir}/packinfo/on_uninstall.m.orig
%{octpkgdir}/packinfo/on_uninstall.m \
cd %{octpkgdir}/packinfo \
%octave_cmd
l=pkg('list');on_uninstall(l{cellfun(@(x)strcmp(x.name,'%{octpkg}'),l)}); \
fi \
%{nil}
Looking closer, I think I can replace the rm with a mv -f. That seems to
remove the rpmlint warning.
What should we do with the final provides? Probably we need to rework the
provides filter for octave packages. What do you think?
I think it is fine as is. May actually help with octave package dependencies.
Filtering leads to other rpm issues 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 694864] New: Review Request: php-pecl-gearman - PHP wrapper to libgearman
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: php-pecl-gearman - PHP wrapper to libgearman https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694864 Summary: Review Request: php-pecl-gearman - PHP wrapper to libgearman Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: paul.wha...@senecac.on.ca QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://scotland.proximity.on.ca/paulwhalen/php-pecl-gearman.spec SRPM URL: http://scotland.proximity.on.ca/paulwhalen/php-pecl-gearman-0.7.0-2.fc14.src.rpm Description: This extension uses libgearman library to provide API for communicating with gearmand, and writing clients and workers. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 694585] Review Request: gnome-shell-extensions - Modify and extend GNOME Shell functionality and behavior
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694585 --- Comment #9 from Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com 2011-04-08 12:38:21 EDT --- Ping? Made the only change you wanted -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 687987] Review Request: plymouth-theme-hot-dog - Plymouth Happy Hot Dog Theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=687987
--- Comment #8 from David Nalley da...@gnsa.us 2011-04-08 12:47:27 EDT ---
sorry about my lack of verbosity.
My only point of concern is that I see no licensing comments anywhere outside
of the spec, and thus can't confirm the license, and while I know that this
content was produced inside fedora, having something that explicitly says what
it is in the tarball would make me feel more warm and fuzzy. Also this is
largely a content package - the real content here is the images, so I wonder if
CC-BY-SA is not more appropriate (content submitted to fedora sans a license
automatically gets cc-by-sa 3.0 unported, whereas code submitted to fedora sans
a license automatically gets MIT, though maybe that's what is written in the
new FPCA and thus doesn't apply yet.)
Thoughts??
[OK] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
[ke4qqq@nalleyx200 SPECS]$ rpmlint ./plymouth-theme-hot-dog.spec
../RPMS/noarch/plymouth-theme-hot-dog-0.3-2.fc14.noarch.rpm
../SRPMS/plymouth-theme-hot-dog-0.3-2.fc14.src.rpm
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[OK] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines
[OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...]
[OK] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[FIX] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
and meet the Licensing Guidelines
[FIX] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license
[NA] 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. Reviewers should use md5sum for
this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package,
please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[ke4qqq@nalleyx200 SOURCES]$ md5sum plymouth-theme-hot-dog-0.3.tar.bz2*
164502f2256f2d83b6f1b0f91db0fc7b plymouth-theme-hot-dog-0.3.tar.bz2
164502f2256f2d83b6f1b0f91db0fc7b plymouth-theme-hot-dog-0.3.tar.bz2.1
[OK] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture
[NA] 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST
have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package
does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST
be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line
[OK] 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. Apply
common sense.
[NA] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden
[NA] 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.
[NA] 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.
[OK] 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 package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
[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 have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[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. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but
is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or
quantity).
[OK] MUST: If
[Bug 435090] Review Request: Cython - This is a development version of Pyrex, a language for writing Python extension modules.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435090 --- Comment #14 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 2011-04-08 12:58:34 EDT --- To add a hyperlink Bug 612776 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 435090] Review Request: Cython - This is a development version of Pyrex, a language for writing Python extension modules.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435090 Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||steve.tray...@cern.ch Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 2011-04-08 12:57:41 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: Cython New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: stevetraylen Following the comments in #612776 I'd like to create EPEL branches. Steve. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 694871] New: Review Request: php-pecl-gearman - PHP wrapper to libgearman
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: php-pecl-gearman - PHP wrapper to libgearman https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694871 Summary: Review Request: php-pecl-gearman - PHP wrapper to libgearman Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: paul.wha...@senecac.on.ca QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://scotland.proximity.on.ca/paulwhalen/php-pecl-gearman.spec SRPM URL: http://scotland.proximity.on.ca/paulwhalen/php-pecl-gearman-0.7.0-2.fc14.src.rpm Description: This extension uses libgearman library to provide API for communicating with gearmand, and writing clients and workers. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693798] Review Request: octave-image - Image processing for Octave
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693798 José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jama...@fc.up.pt --- Comment #3 from José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt 2011-04-08 13:05:40 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) Provides: octave(api) = api-v47+} Ah, typo in the macros. Will get a new octave package out asap. Interestingly, rpm/yum appears to ignore the }.. I could install via yum just fine. As soon as you have a build in koji I will tests it. Requires: (strange, are this used?) __bilateral__.oct()(64bit) __bwdist.oct()(64bit) bwfill.oct()(64bit) bwlabel.oct()(64bit) __custom_gaussian_smoothing__.oct()(64bit) deriche.oct()(64bit) graycomatrix.oct()(64bit) hough_line.oct()(64bit) __imboundary__.oct()(64bit) nonmax_supress.oct()(64bit) rotate_scale.oct()(64bit) __spatial_filtering__.oct()(64bit) Well, these are the octave interfaces that are installed. I think we can leave them. They already have their own namespace of a sort (.oct). My question is how can we use this automatically. A notation such as octave(rotate_scale) seems easier to remember than rotate_scale.oct() In any case I agree that this is an improvement that can be accomplished later. So not an issue for now. Regarding the rpmlint warnings: Is the obsolete really necessary? (It is a genuine question and I accept your answer). It just seems strange to see this for a package that has almost two years. yes, to provide an upgrade path from octave-forge in F14. OK. What should we do with the final provides? Probably we need to rework the provides filter for octave packages. What do you think? I think it is fine as is. May actually help with octave package dependencies. Filtering leads to other rpm issues too. I agree my point as described later is for us to be able to use an automatic octave filter such that as soon as you have an octave script rpms gets the right octave module to depend on. Clearly a nice to have but not a requirement now by any account. :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 435090] Review Request: Cython - This is a development version of Pyrex, a language for writing Python extension modules.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435090 --- Comment #15 from Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com 2011-04-08 13:06:48 EDT --- Fine with me. I don't have resources to maintain them though - it's all yours. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 694585] Review Request: gnome-shell-extensions - Modify and extend GNOME Shell functionality and behavior
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694585
Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com 2011-04-08
13:17:47 EDT ---
Don't be so impatient, I've just coming back from work ^^.
Here is the review:
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
-OK, no significative warning/error
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, all files under GPL v2 or above
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.
-N/A
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.
-N/A
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
-OK, see http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2984258
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.
-OK
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.
-N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
-N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
-N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}.
-N/A
MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
-N/A
MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
-N/A
MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
-OK
MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
-OK
This package is 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
[Bug 694871] Review Request: php-pecl-gearman - PHP wrapper to libgearman
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694871 Paul Whalen paul.wha...@senecac.on.ca changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://gearman.org/ CC||paul.wha...@senecac.on.ca -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 694864] Review Request: php-pecl-gearman - PHP wrapper to libgearman
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694864 Chris Tyler ch...@tylers.info changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ch...@tylers.info 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 627180] Review Request: django-paste - dpaste is a code pastebin application using Django.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=627180 --- Comment #17 from David Riches davi...@ultracar.co.uk 2011-04-08 13:37:33 EDT --- Done, and done.. SPEC: http://dcr226.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/django-dpaste.spec SRPM: http://dcr226.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/django-dpaste-0.2.4-3.fc14.src.rpm RPMLINT: Outputs nothing KOJI: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2984296 - f13 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2984298 - f14 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2984300 - f15 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2984302 - rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2984306 - el5 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2984308 - el6 Thanks for all your help with this :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 645484] Review Request: django-mptt - Utilities for implementing Modified Preorder Tree Traversal
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645484 David Riches davi...@ultracar.co.uk changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from David Riches davi...@ultracar.co.uk 2011-04-08 13:50:42 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: django-mptt Short Description: Utilities for implementing Modified Preorder Tree Traversal Owners: dcr226 Branches: f13 f14 f15 el5 el6 InitialCC: herlo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 687987] Review Request: plymouth-theme-hot-dog - Plymouth Happy Hot Dog Theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=687987 --- Comment #9 from Will Woods wwo...@redhat.com 2011-04-08 14:03:46 EDT --- I actually thought CC-BY-SA made more sense as well; I'll have to make sure the original authors of the image(s) are credited somewhere in the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 627180] Review Request: django-paste - dpaste is a code pastebin application using Django.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=627180 Clint Savage her...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|davi...@ultracar.co.uk |her...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 627180] Review Request: django-paste - dpaste is a code pastebin application using Django.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=627180 Clint Savage her...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #18 from Clint Savage her...@gmail.com 2011-04-08 14:15:02 EDT --- src.rpms are clean $ rpmlint django-dpaste-0.2.4-3.fc14.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint django-dpaste-0.2.4-3.el5.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint django-dpaste-0.2.4-3.el6.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. binary rpms are clean $ rpmlint django-dpaste-0.2.4-3.fc13.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint django-dpaste-0.2.4-3.fc14.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint django-dpaste-0.2.4-3.fc15.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint django-dpaste-0.2.4-3.fc16.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint django-dpaste-0.2.4-3.el5.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint django-dpaste-0.2.4-3.el6.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. All MUST's have been met. I 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 627180] Review Request: django-paste - dpaste is a code pastebin application using Django.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=627180 David Riches davi...@ultracar.co.uk 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 627180] Review Request: django-paste - dpaste is a code pastebin application using Django.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=627180 --- Comment #19 from David Riches davi...@ultracar.co.uk 2011-04-08 14:16:29 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: django-dpaste Short Description: dpaste is a code pastebin application using Django. Owners: dcr226 Branches: f13 f14 f15 el5 el6 InitialCC: herlo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 692466] Review Request: rubygem-kwalify - A parser and schema validator for YAML and JSON
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692466
--- Comment #7 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2011-04-08 14:43:38
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
The find %{buildroot}%{geminstdir}/bin -type f | xargs chmod a+x is not
required IMO.
Checked, confirmed, removed.
* Licensing
- What is the reason for and LGPLv2? I see everywhere mentioned just MIT
The setup.rb file has this license. Moved the license to -doc package, see
below.
* Test suite
- It would be nice if you could execute the testsuite during build process.
Agree. I looked at the tests and it failed for me locally, I tried to find the
workaround to create a patch, but it can take more time than I want to spend on
this.
* setup.rb could be move into -doc subpackage, since it is not essential
for runtime
Agree and done.
Updated files:
Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/rubygem-kwalify.spec
SRPM URL:
http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/rubygem-kwalify-0.7.2-3.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 693798] Review Request: octave-image - Image processing for Octave
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693798 --- Comment #4 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com 2011-04-08 15:17:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) As soon as you have a build in koji I will tests it. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/octave-3.4.0-6.fc15 Well, these are the octave interfaces that are installed. I think we can leave them. They already have their own namespace of a sort (.oct). My question is how can we use this automatically. A notation such as octave(rotate_scale) seems easier to remember than rotate_scale.oct() Yeah, I guess the more I think about it, these Provides are useless. But I don't see them causing a problem, and filtering provides can lead to rpm issues, so I'd like to avoid it if possible. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 694585] Review Request: gnome-shell-extensions - Modify and extend GNOME Shell functionality and behavior
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694585 Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com 2011-04-08 15:21:04 EDT --- Thanks. I can't find out your fas account name. Apply after I import. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gnome-shell-extensions Short Description: Modify and extend GNOME Shell functionality and behavior Owners: sundaram Branches: f15 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 435090] Review Request: Cython - This is a development version of Pyrex, a language for writing Python extension modules.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435090 --- Comment #16 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-08 15:41:09 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 627180] Review Request: django-paste - dpaste is a code pastebin application using Django.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=627180 --- Comment #20 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-08 15:47:03 EDT --- The requested package name and the name in the ticket summary do not match. Please correct whichever is wrong and re-raise the fedora-cvs flag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 645484] Review Request: django-mptt - Utilities for implementing Modified Preorder Tree Traversal
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645484 --- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-08 15:48:54 EDT --- This ticket seems to be assigned to the person who will own the package. It is supposed to be assigned to the reviewer, and you can't review your own packages. Please sort this out, obtain a proper review if necessary, and re-raise the fedora-cvs flag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 694585] Review Request: gnome-shell-extensions - Modify and extend GNOME Shell functionality and behavior
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694585 --- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-08 15:52:15 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 685008] Review Request: rubygem-cloudservers - A Ruby API to the Rackspace Cloud Servers product
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=685008 --- Comment #4 from Major Hayden ma...@mhtx.net 2011-04-08 15:51:21 EDT --- License/summary adjusted. Not sure how the permissions on the spec were set that way, but they're fixed now as well. New files: http://majorhayden.com/RPMS/rubygem-cloudservers/rubygem-cloudservers-0.4.1-2.spec http://majorhayden.com/RPMS/rubygem-cloudservers/rubygem-cloudservers-0.4.1-2.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 693798] Review Request: octave-image - Image processing for Octave
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693798 José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt 2011-04-08 15:58:10 EDT --- OK. With the issues fixed the 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 685008] Review Request: rubygem-cloudservers - A Ruby API to the Rackspace Cloud Servers product
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=685008 Major Hayden ma...@mhtx.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Major Hayden ma...@mhtx.net 2011-04-08 16:04:15 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-cloudservers Short Description: A Ruby API to version 1.0 of the Rackspace Cloud Servers product. Owners: mhayden Branches: f14 f15 InitialCC: nb -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 685008] Review Request: rubygem-cloudservers - A Ruby API to the Rackspace Cloud Servers product
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=685008 --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-08 16:11:12 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma-sdk - SDK for lzma compression
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596461 --- Comment #50 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-08 16:14:47 EDT --- It doesn't appear that all of the issues were addressed. Specifically, this is still providing perl(SevenZip). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 645484] Review Request: django-mptt - Utilities for implementing Modified Preorder Tree Traversal
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645484 --- Comment #9 from David Riches davi...@ultracar.co.uk 2011-04-08 16:28:57 EDT --- I'm not sure what happened and when for this to be assigned to me, and not Ankur - but its quite obvious that I haven't reviewed my own package, from the comments above. I'll get in touch with Ankur and get this rectified.. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 627180] Review Request: django-dpaste - dpaste is a code pastebin application using Django.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=627180 David Riches davi...@ultracar.co.uk changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #21 from David Riches davi...@ultracar.co.uk 2011-04-08 16:26:44 EDT --- done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 627180] Review Request: django-dpaste - dpaste is a code pastebin application using Django.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=627180 David Riches davi...@ultracar.co.uk changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |django-paste - dpaste is a |django-dpaste - dpaste is a |code pastebin application |code pastebin application |using Django. |using Django. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 426537] Review Request: perl-Test-YAML-Valid - Lets you test the validity of YAML files in unit tests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426537 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-08 16:30:15 EDT --- perl-Test-YAML-Valid-0.04-5.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 663244] Review Request: CUnit - A unit testing framework for C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663244 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-08 16:30:51 EDT --- CUnit-2.1.2-6.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 663244] Review Request: CUnit - A unit testing framework for C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663244 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|CUnit-2.1.2-6.fc13 |CUnit-2.1.2-6.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 426537] Review Request: perl-Test-YAML-Valid - Lets you test the validity of YAML files in unit tests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426537 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-08 16:31:15 EDT --- perl-Test-YAML-Valid-0.04-5.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 694568] Review Request: python-testtools - Extensions to the Python unit testing framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694568 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-08 16:31:39 EDT --- python-testtools-0.9.8-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 512170] Review Request: pidgin-sipe - Pidgin plugin for connecting to MS Communications Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512170 Josh joka...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #72 from Josh joka...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-08 16:38:58 EDT --- I'm a fedora packager already. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 512170] Review Request: pidgin-sipe - Pidgin plugin for connecting to MS Communications Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512170 Josh joka...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||joka...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #70 from Josh joka...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-08 16:36:10 EDT --- I'm willing to take over where Justin has left off. I' -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 512170] Review Request: pidgin-sipe - Pidgin plugin for connecting to MS Communications Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512170 --- Comment #71 from Josh joka...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-08 16:38:32 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: pidgin-sipe New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: jokajak InitialCC: icon -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688264] Review Request: perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML - Validate a META.yml file within a CPAN distribution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688264 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-08 16:47:34 EDT --- perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.17-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.17-2.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688264] Review Request: perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML - Validate a META.yml file within a CPAN distribution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688264 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-08 16:47:42 EDT --- perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.17-2.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.17-2.el4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 512170] Review Request: pidgin-sipe - Pidgin plugin for connecting to MS Communications Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512170 --- Comment #73 from Stefan Becker chemob...@gmail.com 2011-04-08 16:56:46 EDT --- @Konstantin Josh: I sent a backport patch from git for the gcc compilation error on F15 to Konstatin (see failed build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=226563). Can you please make sure that this is added to the source 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 682544] Review request: gargoyle - multi-format interactive fiction interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=682544 --- Comment #1 from Carlo Teubner ct.spamma...@gmail.com 2011-04-08 17:08:43 EDT --- In case anyone wants to try this out, I've uploaded binary RPMs too: http://carlolab.appspot.com/files/gargoyle-2010.1-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm http://carlolab.appspot.com/files/gargoyle-2010.1-2.fc14.i686.rpm Anyone care to comment? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 694718] Review Request: python-construct - Powerful declarative parser for binary data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694718 Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||methe...@gmail.com Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #1 from Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com 2011-04-08 17:23:13 EDT --- Removing need sponsor. He has been sponsored by Kevin Fenzi via fesco trac and I have agreed to be a mentor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 435090] Review Request: Cython - This is a development version of Pyrex, a language for writing Python extension modules.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435090 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-08 17:25:26 EDT --- Cython-0.14.1-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/Cython-0.14.1-3.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 435090] Review Request: Cython - This is a development version of Pyrex, a language for writing Python extension modules.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435090 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-08 17:25:39 EDT --- Cython-0.14.1-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/Cython-0.14.1-3.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 694864] Review Request: php-pecl-gearman - PHP wrapper to libgearman
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694864 Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pin...@pingoured.fr --- Comment #1 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr 2011-04-08 17:53:10 EDT --- Are you actually sponsored ? You submitted two review requests for this package, one is FE-NEEDSPONSOR not the other one. Maybe you want to close the un-needed one as duplicate of the other. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694871 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688035] Review Request: perl-CHI - Unified cache handling interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688035 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-08 19:17:33 EDT --- perl-CHI-0.44-3.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 662604] Review Request: ibus-unikey - A Vietnamese engine for IBus input platform that uses Unikey.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662604 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||ibus-unikey-0.5.1-5.fc14 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-04-08 19:18:19 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 662604] Review Request: ibus-unikey - A Vietnamese engine for IBus input platform that uses Unikey.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662604 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-08 19:18:13 EDT --- ibus-unikey-0.5.1-5.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 590355] Review Request: golly - cellular automata simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590355 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-08 19:17:38 EDT --- golly-2.2-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688056] Review Request: sir - A simple application for resizing 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=688056 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-08 19:20:15 EDT --- sir-2.1.1-3.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 641572] Review Request: celt071 - Celt version 0.7.1 for mumble compatibility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641572 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-08 19:19:55 EDT --- celt071-0.7.1-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 680593] Review Request: perl-Browser-Open - Open a browser in a given URL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=680593 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-08 19:18:32 EDT --- perl-Browser-Open-0.03-2.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630205] Review Request: ghc-regexpr - Regular expression like Perl/Ruby in Haskell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630205 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-08 19:18:41 EDT --- ghc-regexpr-0.5.3-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 671862] Review Request: synapse - A semantic launcher written in Vala
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671862 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-04-08 19:21:28 EDT --- synapse-0.2.4.2-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 546620] Review Request: git-bugzilla - Attach patches to a bugzilla bug
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=546620 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Comment #12 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com 2011-04-08 19:24:54 EDT --- If you want to re-try building for EL-5, the missing dep (WWW::Mechanize) is now present. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 512170] Review Request: pidgin-sipe - Pidgin plugin for connecting to MS Communications Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512170 --- Comment #74 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-04-08 19:31:02 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
