[Bug 639661] Review Request: arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs - GNU Binutils for cross-compilation for ARM target
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639661 Hans Ulrich Niedermann changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(e...@brouhaha.com ||) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 591192] Review Request: dh-make - Tool that converts source archives into Debian package source
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591192 --- Comment #13 from Oron Peled 2011-05-22 06:56:18 EDT --- Hmmm... but it depends on #591190 As a result, I'm getting these mails from build...@fedoraproject.org: --- dh-make has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: On x86_64: dh-make-0.55-3.fc15.noarch requires debhelper On i386: dh-make-0.55-3.fc15.noarch requires debhelper Please resolve this as soon as possible. --- I'm not sure what stops #591190 Review Request. Any idea on how to resolve 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 591190] Review Request: debhelper - Helper programs for debian/rules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591190 --- Comment #13 from Oron Peled 2011-05-22 06:58:12 EDT --- Please note that this blocks #591192 which had its Review Request done. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591192#c13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675495] Review Request: parallel - Shell tool for executing jobs in parallel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675495 --- Comment #10 from Golo Fuchert 2011-05-22 08:02:46 EDT --- Update: - moreutils-parallel is in devel - GNU parallel features the compatibility mode - new spec file and srpm for Fedora with Conflicts: moreutils-parallel, new version of GNU parallel, and compatibility mode turned on by default. I added a comment about the compatibiltiy to the description, so that users know what to install when searching for parallel with yum. Just as a reminder: It is not planned to push parallel to the currently stable branches, but to rawhide only to test if everything works as expected. SPEC URL: http://golotop.de/parallel.spec SRPM URL: http://golotop.de/parallel-20110522-1.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 626122] Review Request: libqmf - Qt Messaging 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=626122 Chen Lei changed: What|Removed |Added Version|14 |rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706701] New: Review Request: perl-Test-Pod-Content - Test a Pod's content
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-Pod-Content - Test a Pod's content https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706701 Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-Pod-Content - Test a Pod's content Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Spec URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Test-Pod-Content/perl-Test-Pod-Content.spec SRPM URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Test-Pod-Content/perl-Test-Pod-Content-0.0.5-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: This is a very simple module for testing a Pod's content. It is mainly intended for testing the content of generated Pod - that is, the Pod included in perl modules generated by some mechanism. Another usage example is to test whether all files contain the same copyright notice. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706705] Review Request: libmtag-python - Simple python bindings for libmtag music tagging library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706705 Felipe Contreras 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 571019] Review Request: libmtag - An advanced C music tagging library with a simple API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=571019 --- Comment #13 from Felipe Contreras 2011-05-22 08:40:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) > > libmtag-python: > > http://people.freedesktop.org/~felipec/fedora/libmtag-python.spec > > http://people.freedesktop.org/~felipec/fedora/libmtag-python-0.3.1-1.fc14.src.rpm > > > > Thanks, please file a separate review bug for this, using the usual template > and let me know the bz number. Here it is: bug #706705 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706705] New: Review Request: libmtag-python - Simple python bindings for libmtag music tagging library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: libmtag-python - Simple python bindings for libmtag music tagging library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706705 Summary: Review Request: libmtag-python - Simple python bindings for libmtag music tagging library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: felipe.contre...@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://people.freedesktop.org/~felipec/fedora/libmtag-python.spec SRPM URL: http://people.freedesktop.org/~felipec/fedora/libmtag-python-0.3.1-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Bindings for libmtag, a music tagging library which supports: ID3v1, ID3v2 for MP3 files, Ogg Vorbis and FLAC files. This is a continuation of bug #571019. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 591192] Review Request: dh-make - Tool that converts source archives into Debian package source
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591192
--- Comment #15 from leigh scott 2011-05-22
09:17:28 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Hmmm... but it depends on #591190
>
> As a result, I'm getting these mails from build...@fedoraproject.org:
> ---
> dh-make has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
> On x86_64:
> dh-make-0.55-3.fc15.noarch requires debhelper
> On i386:
> dh-make-0.55-3.fc15.noarch requires debhelper
> Please resolve this as soon as possible.
> ---
>
> I'm not sure what stops #591190 Review Request.
> Any idea on how to resolve this?
Correct the mistake in your spec file
#BuildRequires:
Requires: debhelper
Requires: dpkg-devel
Requires: %{_bindir}/make
You can't require a package that doesn't exist yet
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 591192] Review Request: dh-make - Tool that converts source archives into Debian package source
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591192
leigh scott changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||leigh123li...@googlemail.co
||m
--- Comment #14 from leigh scott 2011-05-22
09:15:52 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Hmmm... but it depends on #591190
>
> As a result, I'm getting these mails from build...@fedoraproject.org:
> ---
> dh-make has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
> On x86_64:
> dh-make-0.55-3.fc15.noarch requires debhelper
> On i386:
> dh-make-0.55-3.fc15.noarch requires debhelper
> Please resolve this as soon as possible.
> ---
>
> I'm not sure what stops #591190 Review Request.
> Any idea on how to resolve this?
Correct the mistake in your spec file
#BuildRequires:
Requires: debhelper
Requires: dpkg-devel
Requires: %{_bindir}/make
You can't require a package that doesn't exist yet
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706565] Review Request: sheepdog - The Sheepdog Distributed Storage System for KVM/QEMU
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706565 Steven Dake changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sd...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sd...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706565] Review Request: sheepdog - The Sheepdog Distributed Storage System for KVM/QEMU
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706565 Steven Dake changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Steven Dake 2011-05-22 11:41:12 EDT --- I will review this package - setting 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 690919] Review Request: aswvdial - Dockapp for wvdial
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690919
--- Comment #7 from Mario Blättermann 2011-05-22 11:52:31
EDT ---
Thanks for your hints. I've changed the license and replaced the %{buildroot}
occurences with the appropriate variable.
Spec URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/aswvdial.spec
SRPM URL:
http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/aswvdial-1.7-2.fc15.src.rpm
Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3086040
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706565] Review Request: sheepdog - The Sheepdog Distributed Storage System for KVM/QEMU
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706565
Steven Dake changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Steven Dake 2011-05-22 12:12:43 EDT ---
MUSTS first:
MUST (1 warning): rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the
build produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
[sdake@beast Downloads]$ rpmlint -v sheepdog-0.2.3-1.fc14.src.rpm
sheepdog.src: I: checking
sheepdog.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Sheepdog
sheepdog.src: I: checking-url http://www.osrg.net/sheepdog (timeout 10 seconds)
sheepdog.src: I: checking-url
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/sheepdog/sheepdog/0.2.3/sheepdog-0.2.3.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
+ cd sheepdog-0.2.3
+ rm -rf /home/sdake/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/sheepdog-0.2.3-1.fc14.x86_64
+ exit 0
[sdake@beast SPECS]$ rpmlint -v
/home/sdake/rpmbiuld/BUILDROOT/sheepdog-0.2.3-1.fc14.x86_64
(none): E: no installed packages by name
/home/sdake/rpmbiuld/BUILDROOT/sheepdog-0.2.3-1.fc14.x86_64
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
MUST (PASSES): The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines .
package passes naming guidelines.
MUST (PASSES): The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
{name}.spec == package %{name}
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
MUST (PASSES): The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines .
GPL are approved licenses
MUST(FAIL): The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
The package license is GPLv2, not GPLv2+. Looking through the source files, I
don't see any references to GPLv3 - if you can point me at them, I'll make sure
they get fixed upstream.
MUST (PASS) : 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.[4]
COPYING in %doc section
MUST (PASS): The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
spec file is in English.
MUST (PASS): The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
spec file is legible.
MUST (PASS): 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.
from upstream:
from upstream:
[sdake@beast Downloads]$ md5sum sheepdog-0.2.3.tar.gz
2348fd7121558e4efe9cab1fda4bf70a sheepdog-0.2.3.tar.gz
from rpm:
[sdake@beast SOURCES]$ md5sum sheepdog-0.2.3.tar.gz
2348fd7121558e4efe9cab1fda4bf70a sheepdog-0.2.3.tar.gz
MUST (PASS): The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture. [7]
verified builds on X86_64 architecture
MUST (NEEDHELP): 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. [8]
I am not sure how to verify this. Last I recall, we turned off builds of
dependent packages on some architectures in fedora, which would make building
this difficult. I will get back to you on this point Monday.
MUST (PASS): 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.
Verified that the build deps of autotools and corosynclib-devel are sufficient
to build from a minimal install + the default packages always located in the
buildroot.
MUST (PASS): The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
no locales used.
MUST (PASS): 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. [10]
no shared libraries in package.
MUST (PASS): Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
there are no bundled system libraries.
MUST (PASS): 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. Withou
[Bug 706565] Review Request: sheepdog - The Sheepdog Distributed Storage System for KVM/QEMU
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706565 --- Comment #4 from Steven Dake 2011-05-22 12:16:08 EDT --- Summary of issues needing correction in MUST requirements of package review: not sure if this is a significant issue or not - I don't understand why rpmlint is complaining. MUST (1 warning): rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1] [sdake@beast Downloads]$ rpmlint -v sheepdog-0.2.3-1.fc14.src.rpm sheepdog.src: I: checking sheepdog.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Sheepdog sheepdog.src: I: checking-url http://www.osrg.net/sheepdog (timeout 10 seconds) sheepdog.src: I: checking-url http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/sheepdog/sheepdog/0.2.3/sheepdog-0.2.3.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. MUST(FAIL): The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] The package license is GPLv2, not GPLv2+. Looking through the source files, I don't see any references to GPLv3 - if you can point me at them, I'll make sure they get fixed upstream. MUST (NEEDHELP): 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. [8] I am not sure how to verify this. Last I recall, we turned off builds of dependent packages (corosync) on some architectures in Fedora, which would make building this difficult on these arches :). I will get back to you on this point Monday. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706565] Review Request: sheepdog - The Sheepdog Distributed Storage System for KVM/QEMU
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706565 --- Comment #5 from Steven Dake 2011-05-22 12:29:45 EDT --- SHOULD (PASS): If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [25] The license is contained in COPYING SHOULD (DELAYED): The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [26] SHOULD (DELAYED): The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [27] I will test this on a workday. SHOULD (DELAYED): The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [28] I will test this on a workday. SHOULD (delayed until May 25): The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. My test environment is under use until May 25. May be able to find other hardware before then. SHOULD (PASS): If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [29] scriptlets are used sanely. SHOULD (PASS): Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [21] There are no subpackages. SHOULD (PASS): The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [30] There are no pc files. SHOULD (PASS): If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [31] All dependencies are accounted for in a clean build environment. SHOULD (PASS): your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[32] There is no man page for the cli tool collie. sdake will create man page and submit upstream to sheepdog project, but this is not a blocker. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706565] Review Request: sheepdog - The Sheepdog Distributed Storage System for KVM/QEMU
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706565 --- Comment #6 from Steven Dake 2011-05-22 12:33:17 EDT --- Summary of SHOULD issues: It is the weekend (May 22) and my test environment is currently under use likely until Wed-Thur. This prevents 3 shoulds from being verified: SHOULD (DELAYED): The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [27] I will test this on a workday. SHOULD (DELAYED): The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [28] I will test this on a workday. SHOULD (delayed until May 25): The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. Also another item of work is as follows: SHOULD (PASS): your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[32] There is no man page for the cli tool collie. sdake will create man page and submit upstream to sheepdog project, but this is not a blocker. This last work item doesn't block the package review, but I will take on responsibility for adding this man page upstream. Expect to see it in an updated tarball of sheepdog. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706565] Review Request: sheepdog - The Sheepdog Distributed Storage System for KVM/QEMU
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706565 --- Comment #7 from Steven Dake 2011-05-22 12:40:11 EDT --- One last point needing work - once we settle on a final rpm spec file, that spec file needs to be merged upstream into the sheepdog.spec.in autotools generated spec file. I will take on this task. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706565] Review Request: sheepdog - The Sheepdog Distributed Storage System for KVM/QEMU
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706565 --- Comment #8 from Steven Dake 2011-05-22 12:45:42 EDT --- David, If you would be so kind, after package review goes to + and is created in the repos, can you file two bugzillas against the sheepdog component and assign them to me. They should be: Create collie.8 man page and submit upstream Merge updated spec file into sheepdog.spec.in and submit upstream (attach final spec file) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690919] Review Request: aswvdial - Dockapp for wvdial
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690919 --- Comment #8 from Mario Blättermann 2011-05-22 12:51:28 EDT --- Due to start problems in F15 based on a missing font, I've added an extra dependency, which isn't picked up automatically. Release tag is not bumped, the links are still valid. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 691195] Review Request: wmnet - Network monitoring dockapp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691195 --- Comment #6 from Mario Blättermann 2011-05-22 12:58:39 EDT --- A certain font was missing to start wmnet on F15. That's why I've build a new package. Spec URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/wmnet.spec SRPM URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/wmnet-1.06-4.fc15.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 690919] Review Request: aswvdial - Dockapp for wvdial
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690919
Martin Gieseking changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||martin.giesek...@uos.de
--- Comment #9 from Martin Gieseking 2011-05-22
13:01:23 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> [FAILED] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
> and
> meet the Licensing Guidelines.
> -> Should be "GPLv2+ and MIT" because of aswvdial/strlcpy.c file
Just a small correction:
The License field should reflect the license of the files in the binary
package, not the single licenses of all involved source files. As MIT is
compatible with GPLv2+, and as the code of strlcpy.c is linked into aswvdial,
we get a binary licensed under GPLv2+ (GPLv2+ + MIT = GPLv2+).
If strlcpy.c were linked and packaged as a separate binary, this binary would
be MIT-licensed and "GPLv2+ and MIT" would be correct.
Also, the %optflags are not applied. Simply add OPT="%{optflags}" to the make
statement to fix 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 678809] Review Request: seeks - A web-search proxy that provides a meta-search engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678809 --- Comment #3 from Sébastien Willmann 2011-05-22 13:22:02 EDT --- Update to version 0.3.3 ftp://ks28905.kimsufi.com/pub/srpms/seeks-0.3.3-1.fc14.src.rpm ftp://ks28905.kimsufi.com/pub/srpms/seeks.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 591192] Review Request: dh-make - Tool that converts source archives into Debian package source
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591192 --- Comment #16 from Oron Peled 2011-05-22 13:44:46 EDT --- Removing the "Requires" from the .spec file will not remove the dependency, only hide it. There is a chain of Review-Request's for Debian packaging tools. They were filed by Jeroen van Meeuwen in 2010. Please follow the dependency chains: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=591192 While these are reviewed in parallel each of the "blocked" packages should ultimately wait for the lower level "blocker" bugs. Note: Jeroen van Meeuwen hasn't responded to any of these BR for a long time [latest comment Oct-2010] -- if he need help, I'm willing to maintain/co-maintain these packages -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706565] Review Request: sheepdog - The Sheepdog Distributed Storage System for KVM/QEMU
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706565 --- Comment #9 from David Nalley 2011-05-22 13:46:14 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) Inline reply: > Summary of issues needing correction in MUST requirements of package review: > > not sure if this is a significant issue or not - I don't understand why > rpmlint > is complaining. > > MUST (1 warning): rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms > the > build produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1] > > [sdake@beast Downloads]$ rpmlint -v sheepdog-0.2.3-1.fc14.src.rpm > sheepdog.src: I: checking > sheepdog.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Sheepdog > sheepdog.src: I: checking-url http://www.osrg.net/sheepdog (timeout 10 > seconds) > sheepdog.src: I: checking-url > http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/sheepdog/sheepdog/0.2.3/sheepdog-0.2.3.tar.gz > (timeout 10 seconds) > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. I personally tend to ignore this particular warning, but I am happy to change it if you so desire, or if you just want rpmlint to be silent. > > MUST(FAIL): The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. [3] > > The package license is GPLv2, not GPLv2+. Looking through the source files, I > don't see any references to GPLv3 - if you can point me at them, I'll make > sure > they get fixed upstream. So while the vast majority of the source files are indeed GPLv2, depcomps and missing have the 'or (at your option) any later version.' in their license text, which means GPLv2+ hence both GPLv2 and GPLv2+ > > > MUST (NEEDHELP): 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. [8] > > I am not sure how to verify this. Last I recall, we turned off builds of > dependent packages (corosync) on some architectures in Fedora, which would > make > building this difficult on these arches :). I will get back to you on this > point Monday. Yeah, I didn't even think about looking at the ExcludeArches on corosync. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 604971] Review Request: jwm - Joe's Window Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604971 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mari...@freenet.de --- Comment #12 from Mario Blättermann 2011-05-22 13:48:58 EDT --- Just tested it on F15. Works fine so far, there is a "jwm" entry in GDM, and jwm starts as expected. But one issue though: There is no local config file initially. The global configuration in /etc/system.jwmrc contains the following line: xterm Means, to run anything, we need at least a terminal, and xterm is not defined as a dependency. If I click on "Terminal" in the jwm menu, nothing happens. And there are no other useful entries which would work. In my mind, the xterm requirement should be added to the package, to get a basic way to start the installed applications. It doesn't eat up lots of disk space. Koji scratch build for F15: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3086111 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706565] Review Request: sheepdog - The Sheepdog Distributed Storage System for KVM/QEMU
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706565 --- Comment #11 from David Nalley 2011-05-22 14:07:15 EDT --- BTW, Thanks for taking on the review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706565] Review Request: sheepdog - The Sheepdog Distributed Storage System for KVM/QEMU
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706565 --- Comment #10 from David Nalley 2011-05-22 14:06:45 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) Inline reply: > Summary of SHOULD issues: > It is the weekend (May 22) and my test environment is currently under use > likely until Wed-Thur. This prevents 3 shoulds from being verified: > > SHOULD (DELAYED): The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. > [27] > > I will test this on a workday. Koji will do builds in mock or you, so hopefully to save you a bit of time: Here are two scratch builds for x86 and x86_64 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3086136 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3086139 > > SHOULD (DELAYED): The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all > supported architectures. [28] > > I will test this on a workday. > > SHOULD (delayed until May 25): The reviewer should test that the package > functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for > example. > > Also another item of work is as follows: > SHOULD (PASS): your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If > it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[32] > > There is no man page for the cli tool collie. sdake will create man page and > submit upstream to sheepdog project, but this is not a blocker. > > This last work item doesn't block the package review, but I will take on > responsibility for adding this man page upstream. Expect to see it in an > updated tarball of sheepdog. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 452427] Review Request: awesome - Extremely fast, small, dynamic and awesome floating and tiling window manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452427 --- Comment #117 from Jim Meyering 2011-05-22 14:15:04 EDT --- (In reply to comment #115) > (In reply to comment #114) > > Thanks. I've used those and do appreciate them. > > If you were to do the same for rawhide, I would be all set ;-) > > Added packages for F15 and rawhide. Have fun! :) Thank you, Thomas (belatedly). Sorry to learn that Michal no longer cares. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706565] Review Request: sheepdog - The Sheepdog Distributed Storage System for KVM/QEMU
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706565 --- Comment #12 from David Nalley 2011-05-22 14:19:24 EDT --- Just did scratch builds for ppc, ppc64, arm, s390, and s390x and all appear to have built successfully All appeared to build successfully. I don't think we have Itanium builders anymore, so I think at least wrt Fedora that's it from a supported arch standpoint. http://s390.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=382308 http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94565 http://ppc.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=220616 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705104] Review Request: freediams - Pharmaceutical Drugs Prescriptor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705104 --- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha 2011-05-22 14:53:49 EDT --- Hello, I did look at that. This project uses qmake so the first two methods mentioned in the wiki will probably not work. I'll try using chrpath and see how that goes. Thanks, Ankur -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706565] Review Request: sheepdog - The Sheepdog Distributed Storage System for KVM/QEMU
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706565 --- Comment #13 from Steven Dake 2011-05-22 15:50:55 EDT --- Agree with MUST assessments from Packager - All MUST requirements are met. Will evaluate if a scratch build works as soon as my cluster is not under use by a different team - and then SHOULD requirements will be met. Regards -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 665853] Review Request: h5py - A Python interface to the HDF5 library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853 Bug 665853 depends on bug 675798, which changed state. Bug 675798 Summary: Review Request: liblzf - Small data compression library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675798 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA Resolution||ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED --- Comment #8 from Steve Traylen 2011-05-22 17:24:52 EDT --- Created attachment 500306 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=500306 Patch to .spec to use system provided liblzf. Hi, This is patch your last .spec file that allows the system liblzf to be used rather than the included one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 665853] Review Request: h5py - A Python interface to the HDF5 library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853 Steve Traylen changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #500306|Patch to .spec to use |Patch to h5py to use system description|system provided liblzf. |provided liblzf. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 665853] Review Request: h5py - A Python interface to the HDF5 library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853 --- Comment #9 from Steve Traylen 2011-05-22 17:26:56 EDT --- Created attachment 500307 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=500307 Patch to .spec to use system provided liblzf. This is the patch to the .spec file. The previous patch was the patch the h5py tar ball its self. 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 702987] Review Request: stdair - C++ Standard Airline IT Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702987 --- Comment #3 from Denis Arnaud 2011-05-22 19:12:56 EDT --- Spec URL: http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/stdair/stdair-0.32.0-1.spec SRPM URL: https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/stdair/fedora_14/stdair-0.32.0-1.fc14.src.rpm === -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 620112] Review Request: udpxy - UDP-to-HTTP multicast traffic relay daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620112
nucleo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status Whiteboard|StalledSubmitter|
--- Comment #9 from nucleo 2011-05-22 20:36:21 EDT ---
- udpxy 1.0-Chipmunk-19
- service disabled by default
- SysV init script replaced with systemd unit
http://nucleo.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/udpxy/1.0.19/udpxy.service
- options from sysconfdir moved to unit file
Spec URL:
http://nucleo.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/udpxy/1.0.19/udpxy.spec
SRPM URL:
http://nucleo.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/udpxy/1.0.19/udpxy-1.0.19-1.fc15.src.rpm
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3086441
$ rpmlint udpxy-1.0.19-1.fc15.i686.rpm udpxy-1.0.19-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
udpxy-debuginfo-1.0.19-1.fc15.i686.rpm udpxy-debuginfo-1.0.19-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
udpxy-1.0.19-1.fc15.src.rpm
udpxy.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multicast -> Multics, multicolor,
multichannel
udpxy.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> Multics,
multicolor, multichannel
udpxy.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxrec
udpxy.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxy
udpxy.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multicast -> Multics,
multicolor, multichannel
udpxy.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> Multics,
multicolor, multichannel
udpxy.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxrec
udpxy.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxy
udpxy.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multicast -> Multics, multicolor,
multichannel
udpxy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> Multics,
multicolor, multichannel
udpxy.src:41: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/lib/systemd/system
udpxy.src:42: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{buildroot}/lib/systemd/system/%{name}.service
udpxy.src:73: E: hardcoded-library-path in /lib/systemd/system/%{name}.service
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 10 warnings.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 497805] Review Request: cppcheck - A tool for static C/C++ code analysis
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=497805 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Jussi Lehtola 2011-05-23 01:10:16 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: cppcheck New Branches: el4 Owners: jussilehtola 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 693363] Review Request: st - A simple terminal implementation for X
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693363
--- Comment #8 from Petr Sabata 2011-05-23 02:16:27 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> So long story short Petr, Silas Sewell and I have exchanged a few emails, and
> I
> think from both Silas and I our POV is:
>
> * hacking openstack-swift or st to have a different binary results in
> documentation not working, and fedora specific 'problems'
>
> * st and openstack-swift are not very likely to both want to be on a single
> system at once.
>
> So I think the conflicts idea works at least from the openstack-swift
> perspective.
>
> My current plan wrt openstack-swift is to introduce this conflicts with
> openstack-swift 1.3.0, which may be a bit, there are some additional
> as-of-yet-unpackaged dependencies that need to be introduced to Fedora, so it
> won't be immediate, but certainly soon, though adding the conflicts to st
> should resolve the immediate issue I believe.
>
> Thoughts, comments?? flames??
Thank you both!
As I see it, openstack-swift upstream don't want to change the binary name
'just because'. Well, we have to (or should) respect their decision.
I'm okay with mutual confict, just wanted some cleaner solution.
--
Updated spec and SRPM:
http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/packages/st/st.spec
http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/packages/st/st-0.1.1-2.fc14.src.rpm
--
--- a/st.spec
+++ b/st.spec
@@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ BuildRequires: libX11-devel
BuildRequires: ncurses
BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils
Requires: terminus-fonts
+# /usr/bin/st, rhbz#693363
+Conflicts: openstack-swift
%description
A simple virtual terminal emulator for X which sucks less.
@@ -44,5 +46,8 @@ desktop-file-install
--dir=%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications %{SOURCE1
%{_datadir}/applications
%changelog
+* Mon May 23 2011 Petr Sabata - 0.1.1-2
+- We have a conflict with openstack-swift (#693363)
+
* Mon Apr 4 2011 Petr Sabata - 0.1.1-1
- Initial import
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693363] Review Request: st - A simple terminal implementation for X
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693363 --- Comment #9 from Marcela Mašláňová 2011-05-23 02:33:57 EDT --- Conflicts should solve it, 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 706421] Review Request: wmname - Prints/sets the EWMH WM name property
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706421 --- Comment #6 from Petr Sabata 2011-05-23 02:45:31 EDT --- Thank you for the repo, Kevin! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706421] Review Request: wmname - Prints/sets the EWMH WM name property
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706421 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2011-05-23 02:46:59 EDT --- wmname-0.1-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wmname-0.1-1.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 706421] Review Request: wmname - Prints/sets the EWMH WM name property
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706421 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2011-05-23 02:47:51 EDT --- wmname-0.1-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wmname-0.1-1.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 706421] Review Request: wmname - Prints/sets the EWMH WM name property
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706421 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
