https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #40 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com ---
Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/updf.spec
SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/updf-0.0.2.4-6.fc18.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #39 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ---
Can I consider completed this package review ?
You could answer that yourself. ;-p
- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
--
You are receiving
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #38 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com ---
(In reply to comment #37)
source(In reply to comment #31)
If you follow
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers
to step 2.1.8 you
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #32 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com ---
(In reply to comment #31)
How can I know all the right dependencies ?
Only by becoming intimately familiar with the software you want to package,
by examining its
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #33 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ---
I thought that it was a task of upstream what of listing all
right dependencies ...
Some do that, others don't do that.
Some add a good README with installation
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #34 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com ---
(In reply to comment #33)
Some do that, others don't do that.
I have a tough nut to crack :)
msgfmt.py -- sys.py (shedskin)
Clearly, and not limited to this
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #35 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ---
yum provides */sys.py
Wrong query. :)
Basically, due to using the '*' wildcard, you here accept _any_ path. But a
sys.py or sys.so in a location that is private to
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #36 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com ---
The requested packages should be
python-libs,
python-polib,
pycairo,
numpy,
librsvg2,
poppler-glib,
gdk-pixbuf2,
gtk2,
gobject-introspection
--
You are receiving
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #37 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com ---
source(In reply to comment #31)
If you follow
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers
to step 2.1.8 you could submit a scratch build in
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #26 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com ---
(In reply to comment #23)
Which is unfortunate, because reviewers make mistakes, and that would have
been an opportunity to show that you know your stuff.
Ok, I
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #27 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com ---
source(In reply to comment #24)
(In reply to comment #21)
The longer version is: This package review has developed into a wrong
direction. Even if there are two new
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #28 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com ---
(In reply to comment #26)
(In reply to comment #23)
Requires: poppler
Not a Python package, so the sponsor should have asked you to explain why
you added
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #29 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com ---
Changelog updated and required packages added.
This time I have built updf on a fresh system by using mock (Fedora 16 i386).
Spec URL:
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #30 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com ---
source(In reply to comment #29)
Changelog updated and required packages added.
This time I have built updf on a fresh system by using mock (Fedora 16 i386).
Spec
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #31 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ---
How can I know all the right dependencies ?
Only by becoming intimately familiar with the software you want to package, by
examining its Python source code, and by
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #21 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ---
Veto!
That's the brief version of my comment. ;)
[...]
The longer version is: This package review has developed into a wrong
direction. Even if there are two new
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #22 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com ---
Hi Michael.
(In reply to comment #21)
Veto!
That's the brief version of my comment. ;)
[...]
The longer version is: This package review has developed into a
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #24 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org ---
(In reply to comment #21)
The longer version is: This package review has developed into a wrong
direction. Even if there are two new packager candidates,
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|mschwe...@gmail.com |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #20 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com ---
Ok, now it should be fine.
I have created a patch to fix all paths.
Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/updf.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #20 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com ---
Ok, now it should be fine.
I have created a patch to fix all paths.
Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/updf.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #17 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com ---
I have used
...
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -o -type l| \
sed '
s:'$RPM_BUILD_ROOT'::
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #15 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Mario already pointed out one of the problems with the %files section: You
are hardcoding the languages. Whenever a new translation is added, the build
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #16 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com ---
(In reply to comment #15)
(In reply to comment #11)
Mario already pointed out one of the problems with the %files section: You
are hardcoding the languages. Whenever a new
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #11 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Done.
Whenever you change something, please bump the release and add a changelog
entry. We should be at 0.0.2.4-2 now.
(In reply to comment #6)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #12 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #6)
2) I don't know if the %post %postun scriptlet are necessary in this case.
Normally, you have to update the desktop database only if the desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #13 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org ---
Mario, we have two new packager candidates here, we should not make it too easy
for them. ;)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #14 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Mario, we have two new packager candidates here, we should not make it too
easy for them. ;)
OK, I will be silent from now on ;)
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Benedikt is right, it doesn't build in mock:
+ /usr/bin/python setup.py build
Traceback (most recent call last):
File setup.py, line 7, in module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #6 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #1)
You have to write the BuildRequires like that:
BuildRequires: pkgconfig, gettext, ..., ..., ...
It doesn't matter if one uses
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #7 from Benedikt Schäfer ib54...@fedoraproject.org ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Hi Antonio,
You have to write the BuildRequires like that:
BuildRequires: pkgconfig, gettext, ..., ..., ...
also the
Requires: pycairo, ...,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #8 from Benedikt Schäfer ib54...@fedoraproject.org ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: Package contains BR:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #9 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Some (or maybe all?) source file headers contain the newer versions clause
regarding the license, that's why the license is GPLv3+.
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(python2)
is a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #10 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com ---
(In reply to comment #9)
%lang(ca) %{_datadir}/locale-langpack/ca/LC_MESSAGES/%{name}.mo
%lang(cs) %{_datadir}/locale-langpack/cs/LC_MESSAGES/%{name}.mo
%lang(de)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #1 from Benedikt Schäfer ib54...@fedoraproject.org ---
Hi Antonio,
the package doesnt build.
You have to write the BuildRequires like that:
BuildRequires: pkgconfig, gettext, ..., ..., ...
also the
Requires: pycairo, ..., ...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #3 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Hi Antonio,
the package doesnt build.
Hi Benedikt.
Why you say that ?
What's up ?
You have to write the BuildRequires like that:
BuildRequires:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|17 |rawhide
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Hardware|All |noarch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841
43 matches
Mail list logo
