[Bug 1069243] Review Request: ccaudio2 - C++ class framework for telephonic audio applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069243 Otto Urpelainen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||otu...@iki.fi Flags||needinfo?(dyfet@gnutelephon ||y.org) --- Comment #24 from Otto Urpelainen --- This review request is very old. Do you still intend to complete it? If so, I can review. If not, please close the issue and mark it as FE-DEADREVIEW, or do nothing, in which case automation will close it in one month. Things to fix: Issues reported in earlier comments, specfile and srpm links are broken, new version available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1069243] Review Request: ccaudio2 - C++ class framework for telephonic audio applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069243 Package Review changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|i...@cicku.me |nob...@fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review? | |needinfo?(i...@cicku.me) | --- Comment #23 from Package Review --- This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1069243] Review Request: ccaudio2 - C++ class framework for telephonic audio applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069243 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dy...@gnutelephony.org Flags||needinfo?(dyfet@gnutelephon ||y.org) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069243] Review Request: ccaudio2 - C++ class framework for telephonic audio applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069243
--- Comment #21 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), LGPL (v3 or later),
GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated. 4 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck:
GPL (v2 or later)
-
ccaudio2-2.1.2/autoconf/ltmain.sh
GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
--
ccaudio2-2.1.2/src/osx.cpp
LGPL (v3 or later)
--
ccaudio2-2.1.2/inc/ccaudio2.h
ccaudio2-2.1.2/src/audiobase.cpp
ccaudio2-2.1.2/src/audiobuffer.cpp
ccaudio2-2.1.2/src/audiofile.cpp
ccaudio2-2.1.2/src/codec.cpp
ccaudio2-2.1.2/src/dialers.cpp
ccaudio2-2.1.2/src/fileio.cpp
ccaudio2-2.1.2/src/friends.cpp
ccaudio2-2.1.2/src/mapper.cpp
ccaudio2-2.1.2/src/oss.cpp
ccaudio2-2.1.2/src/resample.cpp
ccaudio2-2.1.2/src/stream.cpp
ccaudio2-2.1.2/src/teltones.cpp
ccaudio2-2.1.2/src/tone.cpp
ccaudio2-2.1.2/src/w32.cpp
ccaudio2-2.1.2/utils/audiotool.cpp
ccaudio2-2.1.2/utils/tonetool.cpp
Unknown or generated
ccaudio2-2.1.2/autogen.sh
ccaudio2-2.1.2/cmake-abi.sh
ccaudio2-2.1.2/cmodel.sh
ccaudio2-2.1.2/src/detect.cpp
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 7 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File
[Bug 1069243] Review Request: ccaudio2 - C++ class framework for telephonic audio applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069243 --- Comment #20 from David Sugar dy...@gnutelephony.org --- Well, in a broader sense, you do not need those binaries if you are building an application which is simply using the ccaudio2 library, hence they do not truly belong either in devel or the runtime package. Of course we don't explicitly do separate (abi version named) runtime library subpackages in Fedora either, so it could have simply been kept in the base package. But I was being consistent with one of my other existing fedora packages, which happens to be ucommon, and which also has a -bin :). As to why -bin vs -utils, etc? Well, it was suggested to me when ucommon was originally reviewed years back. I do notice debian uses -utils rather than -bin for the utility subpackage of ucommon there, and ucommon in opensuse originally started with a -bin, but now uses -utils with a provides/replaces for the former, so I have to imagine they adopted a policy... If we did ever adopt a formal policy for this for Fedora, I might even suggest -utils only to be consistent with what other distros seem to be doing. But if informally almost everyone doing this is currently using -bin in Fedora, maybe that would be the easier choice to formally adopt. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069243] Review Request: ccaudio2 - C++ class framework for telephonic audio applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069243 --- Comment #19 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- 1. BuildRequires: pkgconfig(ucommon) BuildRequires: ucommon-devel = 6.0.0 Well, you only need one of them. 2. I have a question, why did you split out -bin? Because I've seen many -util, -utils, -tool and -bin, currently no guideline cover the standard name of such package, so I'd like to hear your opinion. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069243] Review Request: ccaudio2 - C++ class framework for telephonic audio applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069243 --- Comment #18 from David Sugar dy...@gnutelephony.org --- In full respect to and consideration of Ralf's comments, I decided to take a week to do some work on ccaudio2 upstream directly, and on several other packages as well. The results of this are 2.1.2: http://dev.gnutelephony.org/fedora/ccaudio2.spec http://dev.gnutelephony.org/fedora/ccaudio2-2.1.2-1.fc21.src.rpm Besides removing the obsolete config script system entirely, I also switched the rpm builds to using cmake, as it seems to always do the correct thing with respect to (not including) rpaths without needing strange hacks. It also has less trouble with parallel builds in the makefiles it produces, another known automake issue that I occasionally have ran into in the past. I hope ccaudio2 is finally ready for distribution in fedora (and perhaps epel), as I have several other packages to work on and get ready for review next. They are already being changed based on this one, so I hope those will go a lot quicker. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069243] Review Request: ccaudio2 - C++ class framework for telephonic audio applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069243 --- Comment #16 from David Sugar dy...@gnutelephony.org --- This bug also lead me to a different and interesting question, which is about software collections and rpath. It would seem to me that if you are doing the alternate software collection style rpm build with an appropriately modified rpm that you would want the rpath to be retained, to make sure that libraries used in the collection are loaded by collection's binaries in place of the default system ones when the collection does provide it's own versions. This issue is not discussed at all in the software collection faq. It is relevant to me because I am thinking of converting my packages to also build as a software collection for use with rhel... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069243] Review Request: ccaudio2 - C++ class framework for telephonic audio applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069243 --- Comment #17 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- (In reply to David Sugar from comment #15) And my equally blunt response is that it may never get used in Fedora for that very reason, as people will most likely use the supplied and rather functional pkg-config and ccaudio2.pc file instead, so it will never hit anyone anyway. Just build your package for an architecture which is using a different set of multilibs and your *-config will go up in smoke. However, to comply with historical gnu policies, Well, I've never ever heard pkg-config was banned from GNU, nor did I say you must use pkg-config. It's just that your *-config script lacks the required amount of generality and that pkg-config is one common approach to fix this problem. However, provided how you reacted upon my remark, my proposal would be upstream to remove the *-config script to avoid misleading people into the traps it set up. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069243] Review Request: ccaudio2 - C++ class framework for telephonic audio applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069243 --- Comment #7 from David Sugar dy...@gnutelephony.org --- I have updated the spec/srpm as suggested... http://dev.gnutelephony.org/fedora/ccaudio2.spec http://dev.gnutelephony.org/fedora/ccaudio2-2.1.1-2.fc20.src.rpm I may have to look at my other packages too now :) Let's see if we can get this out of review and into rawhide for f21... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069243] Review Request: ccaudio2 - C++ class framework for telephonic audio applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069243 --- Comment #8 from David Sugar dy...@gnutelephony.org --- Oh, I did decide to keep the command wrapper macros for things like chown, etc, only because it had some history for when I was doing rpm hosted mingw cross-compiling long ago, where they did actually matter... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069243] Review Request: ccaudio2 - C++ class framework for telephonic audio applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069243
Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rc040...@freenet.de
--- Comment #9 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
One serious (MUSTFIX) issue:
# rpmlint ccaudio2-bin-2.1.1-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm
...
ccaudio2-bin.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/audiotool
['/usr/lib64']
ccaudio2-bin.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/tonetool
['/usr/lib64']
...
A minor issue and remark directed at upstream (presumably you, David ;) )
ccaudio2-config contains this:
...
if [ `ldd /bin/sh | grep lib64` = ]
then
libdir=${exec_prefix}/lib
else
libdir=${exec_prefix}/lib64
fi
...
A common approach to circumvent such clumsy hacks is to to call pkg-config from
inside of such *config scripts and to let them return the values pkg-config
returns.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069243] Review Request: ccaudio2 - C++ class framework for telephonic audio applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069243 --- Comment #10 from David Sugar dy...@gnutelephony.org --- Because gnu policy historically rejected the use of pkg-config, the ccaudio2-config script is used only explicitly when you are NOT otherwise using pkg-config :)...so obviously it has to do the determination on it's own... The other issue looks more interesting and offhand seems less clear to me what to do other than adding chrpath to the BuildRequires and install target, but maybe it is something that is happening in configure from using ucommon-config rather than pkg-config, which can be fixed by adding --with-pkg-config to the ccaudio2.spec %configure well for that I will have to do some test and investigation :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069243] Review Request: ccaudio2 - C++ class framework for telephonic audio applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069243 --- Comment #11 from David Sugar dy...@gnutelephony.org --- I decided to use the chrpath approach, as it seems likely some internal libtool issue... I also make sure to use install-strip, and added --with-pkg-config to the %configure. Every binary rpm produced is clean of rpmlint errors at least on my machine, and I will now have to look at my other packages after this... http://dev.gnutelephony.org/fedora/ccaudio2.spec http://dev.gnutelephony.org/fedora/ccaudio2-2.1.1-3.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069243] Review Request: ccaudio2 - C++ class framework for telephonic audio applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069243
--- Comment #12 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
* Thu Apr 24 2014 David Sugar - 2.1.1-3
- Make sure we install stripped binaries and remove rpath.
You don't want to strip the binaries. The -debuginfo package generation needs
unstripped binaries.
BuildRequires: pkgconfig
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires_based_on_pkg-config
%package devel
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: %{name}-bin%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Some redundancy there. If -bin subpkg already requires base package, you don't
need the first Requires here. Plus, it's questionable that the -devel package
pulls in the -bin package. Do all developers need those tools?
Summary: Headers for building ccaudio applications
Summary: Files for developing with %{name}
because the package includes more than headers.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069243] Review Request: ccaudio2 - C++ class framework for telephonic audio applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069243
--- Comment #13 from David Sugar dy...@gnutelephony.org ---
ahh...this was a result of me knocking out debuginfo in ~/.rpmmacros on this
particular machine (%debug_package %{nil}), so my locally produced bin pkg's
were unstripped, and I mistook that for the general default build case...
Are the (bin) tools needed to build applications that simply link with
ccaudio? No. So you are right, it is questionable, and I think should be
removed, too...
Since I added --with-pkg-config of course I now need the BuildRequires for
pkgconfig, so I guess it should actually be pkconfig(ucommon)...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069243] Review Request: ccaudio2 - C++ class framework for telephonic audio applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069243 --- Comment #14 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- (In reply to David Sugar from comment #10) Because gnu policy historically rejected the use of pkg-config, the ccaudio2-config script is used only explicitly when you are NOT otherwise using pkg-config :)...so obviously it has to do the determination on it's own... Well, then let me cut a story short and rephrase my remark a bit more directly: This script is a fundamentally flawed design, whose defectiveness will hit YOU and Fedora in longer terms. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069243] Review Request: ccaudio2 - C++ class framework for telephonic audio applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069243 --- Comment #15 from David Sugar dy...@gnutelephony.org --- And my equally blunt response is that it may never get used in Fedora for that very reason, as people will most likely use the supplied and rather functional pkg-config and ccaudio2.pc file instead, so it will never hit anyone anyway. However, to comply with historical gnu policies, we do provide the script in the package so that one does have the means to configure dependent applications without having a gnu package that requires use of a non-core binary program like pkg-config (remember that only core utilities like a shell, sed, m4, make, and a c/c+ compiler are supposed to be required to build a gnu package), people can really use the script if they so choose, it works for now, and everyone is happy. Given that there has been a ccaudio in gnu since 1999, it naturally retains a lot of the original gnu policies, but these never limited us from also including other options, so long as the original requirements policies could also be met. For rather similar reasons I include both automake/configure and cmake files to build most of my gnu packages. In my non-gnu packages I usually only use cmake and pkg-config, as the cmake stuff is easier to maintain, and the config- scripts of course also do not test or validate library versions either. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069243] Review Request: ccaudio2 - C++ class framework for telephonic audio applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069243
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Unless you are going to support RHEL5, please drop below:
1. BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root
2. %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}
3. Whole %clean section
4.%defattr(-,root,root,-)
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
Please use:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Drop this in -devel:
Requires: pkgconfig
For simple command like make, rm, sed, chmod and so on you don't need to use
macro:
%{__make} -- make
%{__chmod} -- chmod
In -devel again:
Requires: ucommon-devel -- Requires: ucommon-devel%{?_isa}
Requires: %{name}-bin = %{version}-%{release} -- Requires: %{name}-bin =
%{version}-%{release}%{?_isa}
Requires: ucommon-devel = 6.0.0 -- Requires: ucommon-devel%{?_isa} = 6.0.0
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069243] Review Request: ccaudio2 - C++ class framework for telephonic audio applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069243 --- Comment #5 from David Sugar dy...@gnutelephony.org --- %changelog * Thu Feb 27 2014 David Sugar dy...@gnutelephony.org - 2.1.1-1 - fixed url reference and added config file. This has been updated. I am hoping to get this approved as there is a number of additional packages I also wish to submit... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069243] Review Request: ccaudio2 - C++ class framework for telephonic audio applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069243
--- Comment #4 from David Sugar dy...@gnutelephony.org ---
I found one bug with this package :)
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/tones.conf
is missing from %files...we have an (currently) unpackaged config file as part
of this...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069243] Review Request: ccaudio2 - C++ class framework for telephonic audio applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069243 --- Comment #2 from David Sugar dy...@gnutelephony.org --- Well, I would assert it is purely an upstream issue ;). We actually haven't had a mapped wiki redirect in a long time, and maybe we should, but the home page is any case rather out of date as well... I have not reviewed other packages before, but I could do so. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069243] Review Request: ccaudio2 - C++ class framework for telephonic audio applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069243 --- Comment #3 from David Sugar dy...@gnutelephony.org --- At least this page should now be updated/have correct links: http://www.gnutelephony.org/index.php/GNU_ccAudio2 I guess I will either try to re-import it, or maybe just use that as the base url for the package rather than http://www.gnu.org/software/ccaudio -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069243] Review Request: ccaudio2 - C++ class framework for telephonic audio applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069243 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- My first opinion is that hope someone can update the URL on its homepage: http://wiki.gnutelephony.org/index.php/Download_Page -- 404 Do you accept swap review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
