From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk Thu Sep 1 00:12:59 2005 From: paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk (Paul F. Johnson) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 01:12:59 +0100 Subject: For review In-Reply-To: References: <1125527537.13027.8.camel@localhost> <43163A76.9060508@n-man.com> <1125531265.13027.13.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <1125533579.13027.25.camel@localhost> Hi, > > I think that can be said for just about any emulator. However, unless > > you can get hold of an old compilation CD, you'll find that 99.99999% of > > the images available have been authorised by either the original author > > or company. Those which have not are removed from circulation. > > Are you speaking specifically about *this* emulator in particular? Yes. The ZX Spectrum was a 1980s UK 8 bit home computer which loaded games from tape, not plug in ROMS. There was a small attempt (most notably from Sinclair Research and Mikrotec) to use ROMS, but they failed badly. The only ROM images used are the internal ROMS which contained BASIC and what would pass as an OS today. In the US you had the Commodore 64, TRS80 and TI99/4a. The Spectrum was released over there as the Timex 2000. > Because the same *certainly* can not be said for images available for > MAME, for instance. Yes - I'm well aware of the fun and games with MAME! > > I will, of course, respect the wishes of those on high over this. If > > it's rejected from FCE, how do I get them into Livna? > > My thinking, and IANALBTTTO (I am not a lawyer but talk to them often): > > First, the emulator itself. > > If it's intended to play ROMs that are not licensed for redistribution, > then providing the emulator is an act of contributory infringement. If you care to have a look at worldofspectrum.org you'll find that the distribution of the ROMS is blessed by the owners - and that is despite Amstrad using the ROMS in a pile of new technologies now. > If, however, it's intended to play ROMs that *are* licensed for > redistribution, and if we can prove this, then making the emulator > available is much lower risk. Again, the answers lay here : http://www.worldofspectrum.org/permits/publishers.html Anything not allowed is gone. This goes also for ftp.nvg.org (I think it is). > In either event, we shouldn't be redistributing ROMs themselves unless > they've been licensed *under an OSI license*, which seems unlikely. The ROMS are distributed as images. They are useless without a Spectrum emulator. I'm not sure what the licence condition would be, but given the source is GPL (and this is known to the ROM owners who are aware of what this means) and they still gave their blessing, then I can't see a problem. > So. I'd say your options are: 1. make a defensible case that the majority > of ROMs for this emulator are freely redistributable, or 2. read up on > Livna at http://rpm.livna.org/development.html. I'll have a look at Livna at work later today (it's 1.10am here and I need some sleep!), but would appreciate someone checking out worldofspectrum.org and fuse-emulator.sourceforge.net which should allay fears of all naughtiness. TTFN Paul -- "A lot of football success is in the mind. You must believe you are the best and then make sure that you are. In my time at Liverpool we always said we had the best two teams on Merseyside, Liverpool and Liverpool Reserves." - Bill Shankly From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 00:27:51 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:27:51 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167260] New: Review Request:
Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167260 Summary: Review Request:
Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All URL: http://tomoe.sourceforge.jp/ OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: gdk at redhat.com ReportedBy: ryo-dairiki at users.sourceforge.net QAContact: dkl at redhat.com CC: fedora-extras-list at redhat.com Spec Name or Url: http://proxy.f2.ymdb.yahoofs.jp/users/d1e4801f/bc/tomoe/tomoe.spec?bczVPjDBqCxFxV5i SRPM Name or Url: http://proxy.f2.ymdb.yahoofs.jp/users/d1e4801f/bc/tomoe/tomoe-0.2.1-1.src.rpm?bczVPjDBhG0LrR6C Description: Tomome is a Japanese hand written input utility, which stands for "Tegaki Online Moji-ninshiki Engine." Install this package if you use Japanese handwritting input systems, like scim-tomoe. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 00:28:03 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:28:03 -0400 Subject: [Bug 163776] Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509010028.j810S3vh010002@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed Alias: FE-NEW https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=163776 ryo-dairiki at users.sourceforge.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |167260 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 04:38:57 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 00:38:57 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166980] Review Request: kmymoney2-0.8-2: Personal finance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509010438.j814cv2A012677@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kmymoney2-0.8-2: Personal finance https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166980 ------- Additional Comments From jerry at pbs.com 2005-09-01 00:38 EST ------- RPM build errors: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/lib/kde3/kmm_ofximport.la /usr/lib/kde3/kmm_ofximport.so /usr/share/services/kmm_ofximport.desktop With these installed, --enable-ofxplugin actually works... [root at elm ~]# rpm -qa libofx\* openjade\* libofx-0.7.0-3 openjade-1.3.2-16 libofx-devel-0.7.0-3 openjade-devel-1.3.2-16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From nman64 at n-man.com Thu Sep 1 04:45:08 2005 From: nman64 at n-man.com (Patrick Barnes) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:45:08 -0500 Subject: For review In-Reply-To: <1125533579.13027.25.camel@localhost> References: <1125527537.13027.8.camel@localhost> <43163A76.9060508@n-man.com> <1125531265.13027.13.camel@localhost> <1125533579.13027.25.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <43168754.8080409@n-man.com> Paul F. Johnson wrote: >>My thinking, and IANALBTTTO (I am not a lawyer but talk to them often): >> >>First, the emulator itself. >> >>If it's intended to play ROMs that are not licensed for redistribution, >>then providing the emulator is an act of contributory infringement. >> >> > >If you care to have a look at worldofspectrum.org you'll find that the >distribution of the ROMS is blessed by the owners - and that is despite >Amstrad using the ROMS in a pile of new technologies now. > > > >>If, however, it's intended to play ROMs that *are* licensed for >>redistribution, and if we can prove this, then making the emulator >>available is much lower risk. >> >> > >Again, the answers lay here : > >http://www.worldofspectrum.org/permits/publishers.html > >Anything not allowed is gone. This goes also for ftp.nvg.org (I think it >is). > > > >>In either event, we shouldn't be redistributing ROMs themselves unless >>they've been licensed *under an OSI license*, which seems unlikely. >> >> > >The ROMS are distributed as images. They are useless without a Spectrum >emulator. I'm not sure what the licence condition would be, but given >the source is GPL (and this is known to the ROM owners who are aware of >what this means) and they still gave their blessing, then I can't see a >problem. > > > Even if the ROMs are licensed freely, and I'll assume that you have done your research and they are, they are most likely not released under an OSI license. If you can't access the source code for the images, it isn't an OSI license. The license status of the emulator does not matter in this regard. This doesn't necessarily mean that the emulator cannot be included in Extras, but it does mean we wouldn't want to distribute the ROMs. If you can find some demo programs that have been released under an OSI license, you might make a small package of those that can be placed in Extras to provide immediate usefulness to the emulator. This would definitely help the case for getting it into Extras. If you can build a complete OSS environment around this emulator, perhaps including things such as a few demo programs, asm compiler, and maybe some other supporting tools, it would be easy to demonstrate that the program has significant non-infringing uses, and would allow it to compared to the likes of Wine rather than MAME or ZSNES. -- Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes nman64 at n-man.com www.n-man.com -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 04:49:46 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 00:49:46 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167254] Review Request: perl-Module-Versions-Report - Report versions of all modules in memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509010449.j814nk0A014260@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Module-Versions-Report - Report versions of all modules in memory https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167254 rc040203 at freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|gdk at redhat.com |rc040203 at freenet.de OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2005-09-01 00:49 EST ------- APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 05:49:40 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 01:49:40 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167251] Review Request: perl-HTML-Scrubber - Library for scrubbing/sanitizing html In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509010549.j815ne4J022678@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-HTML-Scrubber - Library for scrubbing/sanitizing html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167251 rc040203 at freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|gdk at redhat.com |rc040203 at freenet.de OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2005-09-01 01:48 EST ------- Nitpick: * I think you also should BR: perl(HTML::Entities) However, HTML::Entities is provided through perl(HTML::Parser), so this shouldn't have any visible impact APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From ville.skytta at iki.fi Thu Sep 1 06:34:18 2005 From: ville.skytta at iki.fi (Ville =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Skytt=E4?=) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 09:34:18 +0300 Subject: nethack-3.4.3-1 In-Reply-To: <20050831230944.GA4203@lostknife.com> References: <1125527544.3126.5.camel@kra.bla.fasel> <20050831230944.GA4203@lostknife.com> Message-ID: <1125556458.2946.123.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 19:09 -0400, Lee-Win Tai wrote: > On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 12:32:24AM +0200, Vassilios Kotoulas wrote: > > is there a reason why nethack-3.4.3-1 obsoletes nethack-falconseye <= > > 1.9.4-6.a ? > > You may want to peruse this thread. > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-July/msg00527.html Also, time permitting, I intend to reintroduce Falcon's Eye in the form of Vulture's Eye (http://www.darkarts.co.za/projects/vultures/) in the future for Extras in a way that it peacefully coexists with the vanilla tty-only one. From elprodigio at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 07:02:41 2005 From: elprodigio at gmail.com (Didier Casse) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 15:02:41 +0800 Subject: check-rpaths on fedora-rpmdevtools: What's the purpose of it? In-Reply-To: <513a3b30508312358611d36cb@mail.gmail.com> References: <513a3b30508312358611d36cb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <513a3b305090100028607036@mail.gmail.com> Hi Everybody, I'd like to ask a question: I normally use fedora-rpmdevtools (which I think is cool!) but recently with this check-rpaths script it gave me this error while I was compiling Eterm: ERROR: file '/usr/bin/Eterm' contains a standard rpath '/usr/lib' in [/usr/lib:/ usr/lib/Eterm] I posted it to the enlightenment-devel list and Michael Jennings (Eterm author) said that the script is a bad idea and to simply get rid of it. You can take a look at the thread here: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=8065956&forum_id=6427 In the end, Rasterman (enlightenment author) asked the following: "but what is the REASON for this rpath removal policy? i'm curious to know why! i'm wondering how it causes problems or breaks things or such... ? i'd really like to know! :)" I also have no idea about the internals and assume it's there for a reason. Ville provided me with some links and explanation but suggested that I email here to know more. Yes I want to know more and post it to the e-devel mailing list. Thanks for any insights. -- With kind regards, Didier. ------------ Yum/apt repository for DR17/EFL: http://sps.nus.edu.sg/~didierbe Didier F.B Casse PhD candidate, Singapore Synchrotron Light Source (SSLS) National University of Singapore. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 07:02:58 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 03:02:58 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167252] Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509010702.j8172wis002672@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167252 rc040203 at freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|gdk at redhat.com |rc040203 at freenet.de OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2005-09-01 03:02 EST ------- "make test" fails for me on FC4/i386: + ./Build test t/0-signature............WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! Primary key fingerprint: DF05 D93D BEA3 9DD2 4A44 CD66 05DF 169F 5C08 E9C4 Not in MANIFEST: debugfiles.list Not in MANIFEST: debugsources.list ==> MISMATCHED content between MANIFEST and distribution files! <== t/0-signature............NOK 1# Failed test (t/0-signature.t at line 9) # Looks like you failed 1 tests of 1. t/0-signature............dubious Test returned status 1 (wstat 256, 0x100) DIED. FAILED test 1 Failed 1/1 tests, 0.00% okay ... Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t/0-signature.t 1 256 1 1 100.00% 1 Failed 1/17 test scripts, 94.12% okay. 1/143 subtests failed, 99.30% okay. error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.81496 (%check) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk Thu Sep 1 07:14:05 2005 From: paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk (Paul F. Johnson) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 08:14:05 +0100 Subject: For review In-Reply-To: <43168754.8080409@n-man.com> References: <1125527537.13027.8.camel@localhost> <43163A76.9060508@n-man.com> <1125531265.13027.13.camel@localhost> <1125533579.13027.25.camel@localhost> <43168754.8080409@n-man.com> Message-ID: <1125558845.13027.48.camel@localhost> Hi, > Even if the ROMs are licensed freely, and I'll assume that you have done > your research and they are, they are most likely not released under an > OSI license. If you can't access the source code for the images, it > isn't an OSI license. The source would be useless as it's all in Z80 machine code! > The license status of the emulator does not > matter in this regard. This doesn't necessarily mean that the emulator > cannot be included in Extras, but it does mean we wouldn't want to > distribute the ROMs. If you can find some demo programs that have been > released under an OSI license, you might make a small package of those > that can be placed in Extras to provide immediate usefulness to the > emulator. This would definitely help the case for getting it into > Extras. If you can build a complete OSS environment around this > emulator, perhaps including things such as a few demo programs, asm > compiler, and maybe some other supporting tools, it would be easy to > demonstrate that the program has significant non-infringing uses, and > would allow it to compared to the likes of Wine rather than MAME or ZSNES. Okay, we're not talking about the same level of technology here - not even close. History lesson time. During the early to mid 1980s, a whole pile of home micro computers based on the Zilog Z80 (Spectrum, ZX81, Aquarius), the 6502 (BBC Micro B, Oric 1) and 6809 (Dragon 32 and the Commodore 64) processors. These machines came with a few leads, mainly to connnect to a tape recorder and TV set. You switched them on and you were *instantly* transported into BASIC (of one form or another). ROMS were typically 8k in size and everything was coded in assembler. Inside of BASIC, you had access to all of the sound and video resources (and usually, all you had to do was type INK or COLOUR to get a change of colour, it was nothing amazing). Sound could be as simple as typing in BEEP. It was rare to find anything other than BASIC for these machines (although the BBC B could have ROMS fitted which contained Pascal or C or FORTH). Assembler was also accessed through BASIC. For the Spectrum, this mean typing in the raw hex. None of this LD A,3, but &61,&3C which was then put directly into memory. For the Spectrum, I'll exclude the 6 or so ROMs that appeared as plug ins as they are as rare as a hens tooth and required special hardware addons to get them to work. All software had to be loaded from audio tape (until after Amstrad bought the spectrum and added a 3" drive). Onto specifics on Fuse. Yes, I've looked into the licence for the ROMS - as I've said though, a pile of Z80 is not going to be much use to anyone (it does say though on the Fedora page I was referred to that distribution of images was okay). The worldofspectrum website contains just about everything that is available and the site owner has gone to great lengths to ensure that the permission is there to freely distribute the software. There are some cross compiler tools which can generate software that will run on the original 8 bit machines, but they are not included in the RPM (and neither would I really want them to be, they're poor!) Oh well. Time to get to work - another crappy day here I come... TTFN Paul -- "A lot of football success is in the mind. You must believe you are the best and then make sure that you are. In my time at Liverpool we always said we had the best two teams on Merseyside, Liverpool and Liverpool Reserves." - Bill Shankly From buildsys at fedoraproject.org Thu Sep 1 08:27:41 2005 From: buildsys at fedoraproject.org (buildsys at fedoraproject.org) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 04:27:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fedora Extras 3 Package Build Report Message-ID: <20050901082741.EF9578030@extras64.linux.duke.edu> Packages built and released for Fedora Extras 3: 10 esmtp-0.5.1-7.fc3 perl-Class-DBI-0.96-4.fc3 perl-Class-DBI-0.96-6.fc3 perl-Class-DBI-Plugin-0.03-3.fc3 perl-Data-Page-2.00-3.fc3 perl-Data-Page-2.00-4.fc3 perl-HTML-Format-2.04-2.fc3 perl-Module-Refresh-0.06-2.fc3 perl-WWW-Mechanize-1.14-1.fc3 perl-WWW-Mechanize-1.14-2.fc3 For more information about the built packages please see the repository or the fedora Info Feed: http://fedoraproject.org/infofeed/ From buildsys at fedoraproject.org Thu Sep 1 08:27:50 2005 From: buildsys at fedoraproject.org (buildsys at fedoraproject.org) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 04:27:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fedora Extras 4 Package Build Report Message-ID: <20050901082750.9A7948030@extras64.linux.duke.edu> Packages built and released for Fedora Extras 4: 12 esmtp-0.5.1-7.fc4 loudmouth-1.0.1-2.fc4 pam_ssh-1.91-8.1.fc4 perl-Class-DBI-0.96-4.fc4 perl-Class-DBI-0.96-6.fc4 perl-Class-DBI-Plugin-0.03-3.fc4 perl-Data-Page-2.00-3.fc4 perl-Data-Page-2.00-4.fc4 perl-HTML-Format-2.04-2.fc4 perl-Module-Refresh-0.06-2.fc4 perl-WWW-Mechanize-1.14-1.fc4 perl-WWW-Mechanize-1.14-2.fc4 For more information about the built packages please see the repository or the fedora Info Feed: http://fedoraproject.org/infofeed/ From buildsys at fedoraproject.org Thu Sep 1 08:27:57 2005 From: buildsys at fedoraproject.org (buildsys at fedoraproject.org) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 04:27:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fedora Extras development Package Build Report Message-ID: <20050901082757.66ED68030@extras64.linux.duke.edu> Packages built and released for Fedora Extras development: 9 gtkmathview-0.7.3-5 loudmouth-1.0.1-3.fc5 perl-Class-DBI-0.96-6.fc5 perl-Class-DBI-Plugin-0.03-3.fc5 perl-Data-Page-2.00-3.fc5 perl-Data-Page-2.00-4.fc5 perl-WWW-Mechanize-1.14-1.fc5 perl-WWW-Mechanize-1.14-2.fc5 source-highlight-2.1.2-1.fc5 For more information about the built packages please see the repository or the fedora Info Feed: http://fedoraproject.org/infofeed/ From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 08:36:23 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 04:36:23 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167282] New: Review request: perl-File-Slurp - Efficient Reading/Writing of Complete Files Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167282 Summary: Review request: perl-File-Slurp - Efficient Reading/Writing of Complete Files Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/File-Slurp/ OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: gdk at redhat.com ReportedBy: rc040203 at freenet.de QAContact: dkl at redhat.com CC: fedora-extras-list at redhat.com Spec Name or Url: ftp://packman.iu-bremen.de/fedora/SRPMS/perl-File-Slurp.spec SRPM Name or Url: ftp://packman.iu-bremen.de/fedora/SRPMS/perl-File-Slurp-9999.09-1.src.rpm Description: This module provides subs that allow you to read or write entire files with one simple call. They are designed to be simple to use, have flexible ways to pass in or get the file contents and to be very efficient. There is also a sub to read in all the files in a directory other than . and .. These slurp/spew subs work for files, pipes and sockets, and stdio, pseudo-files, and DATA. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 08:36:35 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 04:36:35 -0400 Subject: [Bug 163776] Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509010836.j818aZhc022574@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed Alias: FE-NEW https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=163776 rc040203 at freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn|165904 | BugsThisDependsOn| |167282 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk Thu Sep 1 08:44:47 2005 From: paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk (Paul F. Johnson) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 09:44:47 +0100 Subject: FUSE - Z80 ROM documentation Message-ID: <1125564287.16840.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> Hi, Further to my requests about the inclusion of the Z80 ROMs within the Fuse package, I've been forwarded the following URLS http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.sinclair/msg/c092cc4d4943131e?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&th=c7c6be9db6ecba9b&rnum=1&ic=1 This one states the position of Amstrad (the owners of the ROMS). Basically, as long as the copyright message is kept and no fee is charged, they're good to go. They can be released as images with the blessing of the owners. Can someone now please review the spec and .srpms? TTFN Paul -- "Logic, my dear Zoe, is merely the ability to be wrong with authority" - Dr Who From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 09:13:59 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 05:13:59 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167252] Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509010913.j819DxmX027134@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167252 jpo at di.uminho.pt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL|http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/|http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/ |software/fedora/perl-Text- |software/fedora/perl-Text- |WikiFormat-0.76-1.src.rpm |WikiFormat-0.76-2.src.rpm ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2005-09-01 05:13 EST ------- New SRPM: http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-Text-WikiFormat-0.76-2.src.rpm Changelog: Disabled the signature test. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 09:53:30 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 05:53:30 -0400 Subject: [Bug 165919] Review Request: pam_ssh Pluggable Authentication Module for ssh In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509010953.j819rUDB031749@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pam_ssh Pluggable Authentication Module for ssh https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165919 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2005-09-01 05:53 EST ------- I have built the pam_ssh package on all platforms. I made a mistake on FC-4 by doing the make tag before cvs commit, so the tag was recorded but not applied and after I commited I couldn't tag because the tag allready existed. So I added .1 to the release of FC-3 and FC-4 packages. If I am not wrong this should allow for updating between fc versions as 1.fc3 < 1.fc4 < fc5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From iago at iagorubio.com Thu Sep 1 10:20:35 2005 From: iago at iagorubio.com (Iago Rubio) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 12:20:35 +0200 Subject: FUSE - Z80 ROM documentation In-Reply-To: <1125564287.16840.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1125564287.16840.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1125570035.31613.4.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 09:44 +0100, Paul F. Johnson wrote: > Hi, > > Further to my requests about the inclusion of the Z80 ROMs within the > Fuse package, I've been forwarded the following URLS > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.sinclair/msg/c092cc4d4943131e?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&th=c7c6be9db6ecba9b&rnum=1&ic=1 > > This one states the position of Amstrad (the owners of the ROMS). > Basically, as long as the copyright message is kept and no fee is > charged, they're good to go. They can be released as images with the > blessing of the owners. I don't think it could apply for Extras: - It's non free (not OSI License). - It does not allow commercial distribution. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#head-93e501121f9118baffec84cfd7144adb547943b2 -- Iago Rubio From bugs.michael at gmx.net Thu Sep 1 10:40:20 2005 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 12:40:20 +0200 Subject: For review In-Reply-To: <1125558845.13027.48.camel@localhost> References: <1125527537.13027.8.camel@localhost> <43163A76.9060508@n-man.com> <1125531265.13027.13.camel@localhost> <1125533579.13027.25.camel@localhost> <43168754.8080409@n-man.com> <1125558845.13027.48.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <20050901124020.38504883.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 08:14:05 +0100, Paul F. Johnson wrote: > Assembler was also accessed through BASIC. For the Spectrum, this mean > typing in the raw hex. None of this LD A,3, but &61,&3C which was > then put directly into memory. There is common confusion about "assembler, assembler language, and machine code". When you don't program the machine with any mnemonics at all, like LDA, STA and others, but only with hex numbers stored directly into memory, it is machine code (processor instructions), not assembler language. You are directly at the level of the CPU/MPU. On the contrary, if you work with mnemonics and most likely even with text source files, you come closer to the assembler level, where you feed the assembler program with your source to create machine code. The simplest form of an assembler being the most common one in the eighties. Direct input and validation of mnemonics plus disassembling of memory contents. Advanced assemblers (working with source files, a preprocessor for macros, labels, include files) for home computers became common near the end of the eighties. [...] On the general subject of "emulators", I second Greg's earlier reply, particularly this piece of it: If it's intended to play ROMs that are not licensed for redistribution, then providing the emulator is an act of contributory infringement. [...] We've had VICE (the Commodore 64/128/../foo) emulator package in fedora.us Extras, _including_ various Basic [1] and Kernal [2] ROM files. These files are copyrighted and not freely redistributable. Additionally, the "Commodore" trademark has been sold several times to companies who had money to burn and believed that the trademark still has a marketing value (see list archives, IIRC) and is not just kept alive by fans of computer nostalgia. A few web sites, who had offered images for old games and programs, are known to have received cease and desist letters, although some software companies have put old games into the public domain. It would be irresponsible for all IANAL type of people to accept a full-blown Commodore emulator in Fedora Extras. Without the ROM images, it is useless, and most likely would still be seen as contributory infringement (not just if it contained links to web sites offering RAM and ROM images). With regard to rpm.livna.org, it is not the place where to put stuff that bears risks [for the people who provide the infrastructure]. Licencing issues and patents are one thing, infringement is another. -- [1] Microsoft Basic [2] Yes, the original spelling From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 11:09:02 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 07:09:02 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167252] Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509011109.j81B92Sj006385@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167252 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2005-09-01 07:08 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Disabled the signature test. Well, I am a bit hesitant on accepting this change, without knowing the cause for the testsuite failure. Is the test buggy? Does the test trip a bug in Module::Signature? Is it a configuration issue? Or is it a bug in Text::WikiFormat? I don't know. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 11:10:15 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 07:10:15 -0400 Subject: [Bug 165919] Review Request: pam_ssh Pluggable Authentication Module for ssh In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509011110.j81BAFGB006598@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pam_ssh Pluggable Authentication Module for ssh https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165919 ------- Additional Comments From dmitry at butskoy.name 2005-09-01 07:10 EST ------- Hmmm... May be FE admins can fix this mistake? (See https://admin.fedora.redhat.com/accounts/dump-group.cgi?group=cvsextras&role_type=sponsor&format=html) Anyway, currently it looks little bit ugly... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 11:30:30 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 07:30:30 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167252] Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509011130.j81BUUnH008864@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167252 ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2005-09-01 07:30 EST ------- Ralf, The problem is that the files "debugfiles.list" and "debugsources.list" are generated automatically by rpmbuild. The files appear during the install step (just try rpmbuild -bi perl-Text-WikiFormat and look into the BUILD/Text-WikiFormat directory). As these files don't have entries in the SIGNATURE file, they cause the signature test to fail. This problem happens if the Module::Signature is installed. We already used this approach in a couple of perl packages (disable/remove the signature test). Another solution would be to BuildConflict: perl(Module::Signature). /jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 11:47:24 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 07:47:24 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166980] Review Request: kmymoney2-0.8-2: Personal finance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509011147.j81BlOop011379@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kmymoney2-0.8-2: Personal finance https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166980 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2005-09-01 07:47 EST ------- I didn't see those missing files, but we didn't use BuildRequires: libofx-devel I would have expected configure to die if I gave --enable-ofxplugin and libofx wasn't found. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 11:54:36 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 07:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167252] Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509011154.j81BsaO2012486@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167252 rc040203 at freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2005-09-01 07:53 EST ------- Ah! I understand. Time to file a PR against rpm, I guess ;) APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From gdk at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 12:39:28 2005 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:39:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: For review In-Reply-To: <1125533579.13027.25.camel@localhost> References: <1125527537.13027.8.camel@localhost> <43163A76.9060508@n-man.com> <1125531265.13027.13.camel@localhost> <1125533579.13027.25.camel@localhost> Message-ID: OK, having read over the page at: http://www.worldofspectrum.org/permits/publishers.html ...I'm comfortable with the idea of offering this emulator for Extras. The images are another matter -- we're probably best referring people to this site for the images in the %docs or something, especially if the copyright state of these images tends to be in flux. --g _____________________ ____________________________________________ Greg DeKoenigsberg ] [ the future masters of technology will have Community Relations ] [ to be lighthearted and intelligent. the Red Hat ] [ machine easily masters the grim and the ] [ dumb. --mcluhan On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Paul F. Johnson wrote: > Hi, > > > > I think that can be said for just about any emulator. However, unless > > > you can get hold of an old compilation CD, you'll find that 99.99999% of > > > the images available have been authorised by either the original author > > > or company. Those which have not are removed from circulation. > > > > Are you speaking specifically about *this* emulator in particular? > > Yes. > > The ZX Spectrum was a 1980s UK 8 bit home computer which loaded games > from tape, not plug in ROMS. There was a small attempt (most notably > from Sinclair Research and Mikrotec) to use ROMS, but they failed badly. > The only ROM images used are the internal ROMS which contained BASIC and > what would pass as an OS today. In the US you had the Commodore 64, > TRS80 and TI99/4a. The Spectrum was released over there as the Timex > 2000. > > > Because the same *certainly* can not be said for images available for > > MAME, for instance. > > Yes - I'm well aware of the fun and games with MAME! > > > > I will, of course, respect the wishes of those on high over this. If > > > it's rejected from FCE, how do I get them into Livna? > > > > My thinking, and IANALBTTTO (I am not a lawyer but talk to them often): > > > > First, the emulator itself. > > > > If it's intended to play ROMs that are not licensed for redistribution, > > then providing the emulator is an act of contributory infringement. > > If you care to have a look at worldofspectrum.org you'll find that the > distribution of the ROMS is blessed by the owners - and that is despite > Amstrad using the ROMS in a pile of new technologies now. > > > If, however, it's intended to play ROMs that *are* licensed for > > redistribution, and if we can prove this, then making the emulator > > available is much lower risk. > > Again, the answers lay here : > > http://www.worldofspectrum.org/permits/publishers.html > > Anything not allowed is gone. This goes also for ftp.nvg.org (I think it > is). > > > In either event, we shouldn't be redistributing ROMs themselves unless > > they've been licensed *under an OSI license*, which seems unlikely. > > The ROMS are distributed as images. They are useless without a Spectrum > emulator. I'm not sure what the licence condition would be, but given > the source is GPL (and this is known to the ROM owners who are aware of > what this means) and they still gave their blessing, then I can't see a > problem. > > > So. I'd say your options are: 1. make a defensible case that the majority > > of ROMs for this emulator are freely redistributable, or 2. read up on > > Livna at http://rpm.livna.org/development.html. > > I'll have a look at Livna at work later today (it's 1.10am here and I > need some sleep!), but would appreciate someone checking out > worldofspectrum.org and fuse-emulator.sourceforge.net which should allay > fears of all naughtiness. > > TTFN > > Paul > -- > "A lot of football success is in the mind. You must believe you are the > best and then make sure that you are. In my time at Liverpool we always > said we had the best two teams on Merseyside, Liverpool and Liverpool > Reserves." - Bill Shankly > > -- > fedora-extras-list mailing list > fedora-extras-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list > From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 12:44:57 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:44:57 -0400 Subject: [Bug 165919] Review Request: pam_ssh Pluggable Authentication Module for ssh In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509011244.j81CivhU019034@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pam_ssh Pluggable Authentication Module for ssh https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165919 ------- Additional Comments From tmraz at redhat.com 2005-09-01 08:44 EST ------- 1.fc3 < 1.fc4 < fc5 - this isn't right fc5 < 1.fc3 < 1.fc4 is the correct ordering. So you should rebuild the fc5 version too. But it is possible to move the mistaken tag after the commit (too late now if you built the 1.fcx packages) - simply use: make tag TAG_OPTS=-F -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Thu Sep 1 12:50:21 2005 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:50:21 +0200 Subject: FUSE - Z80 ROM documentation In-Reply-To: <1125570035.31613.4.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> References: <1125564287.16840.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125570035.31613.4.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> Message-ID: <4316F90D.4080801@hhs.nl> Iago Rubio wrote: > On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 09:44 +0100, Paul F. Johnson wrote: > >>Hi, >> >>Further to my requests about the inclusion of the Z80 ROMs within the >>Fuse package, I've been forwarded the following URLS >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.sinclair/msg/c092cc4d4943131e?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&th=c7c6be9db6ecba9b&rnum=1&ic=1 >> >>This one states the position of Amstrad (the owners of the ROMS). >>Basically, as long as the copyright message is kept and no fee is >>charged, they're good to go. They can be released as images with the >>blessing of the owners. > > > I don't think it could apply for Extras: > > - It's non free (not OSI License). > Its a frimware blob and thus dopesn't need to be OSI, it falls under the shareware data file exception. > - It does not allow commercial distribution. > To quote: No. No one should be charging for the ROM code because (as a result of the point above) there are loads of freely available images anyway. If I ever thought someone was charging for the ROM images then I'd make them available as a free download on the www.amstrad.com web site. Naturally I imagine that some emulator writers want to charge a shareware fee for the code they have written and we have absolutely no problem with that as long as they aren't, in any sense, charging for the parts of the code that are (c)Amstrad and (c) Sinclair. So commercial distribution is fine, as long as the price asked is not for the amstrad code, but for other parts (such as the cd the code is on) Regards, Hans From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 13:49:00 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 09:49:00 -0400 Subject: [Bug 165963] Review Request: libnet. Packet construction and injection library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509011349.j81Dn0bL028599@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libnet. Packet construction and injection library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165963 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2005-09-01 09:48 EST ------- Well, the change I've applied to libnet10 in devel CVS is to add versioned "Provides" for libnet and libnet-devel. With them, your new libnet-devel package is seen as an update/upgrade. If you agree with that, somebody would just need to push updates for libnet10 for devel (and possibly also update FC-4 and FC-3 like that). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 14:46:31 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 10:46:31 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166980] Review Request: kmymoney2-0.8-3: Personal finance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509011446.j81EkVHO008412@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kmymoney2-0.8-3: Personal finance https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166980 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: kmymoney2- |Review Request: kmymoney2- |0.8-2: Personal finance |0.8-3: Personal finance ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2005-09-01 10:46 EST ------- %changelog * Thu Sep 01 2005 Rex Dieter 0.8-3 - BR: libofx-devel Spec Name or Url: http://apt.kde-redhat.org/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/kmymoney2-0.8-3.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://apt.kde-redhat.org/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/kmymoney2-0.8-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 14:49:53 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 10:49:53 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167258] Review Request: up-imapproxy: University of Pennsylvania IMAP Proxy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509011449.j81EnrHA009524@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: up-imapproxy: University of Pennsylvania IMAP Proxy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167258 paul at city-fan.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |paul at city-fan.org ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2005-09-01 10:49 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > Before this gets reviewed, I want to ask about rpmlint output: > > W: up-imapproxy incoherent-version-in-changelog up-imapproxy-1.2.3-3 1.2.3-3 > > I don't understand this one. This changelog is just like the last package I > submitted, which was fine. Is it because of the additional '-' in the package name? Just use the epoch/version/release numbers, don't include the package name at all. > E: up-imapproxy init-script-without-chkconfig-postin /etc/rc.d/init.d/imapproxy > > Um, I thought it was a bad idea to enable a service just because it is being > installed. It wants you to do a "chkconfig -add" in %post; this doesn't necessarily enable the service - if you have "-" for the default runlevels then the service will be disabled by default. > E: up-imapproxy no-status-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/imapproxy > > I didn't write the init script. It is packaged in the source. I could write > another one if it is required. > > W: up-imapproxy no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/imapproxy > > See above comment. The initscript in the source is rather old-fashioned. I'll attach a new one to this report shortly. > W: up-imapproxy service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/imapproxy > > I don't know what this means. The chkconfig line in the initscript specifies default runlevels of 2345, so a "chkconfig -add imapproxy" will enable the service in those runlevels. > E: up-imapproxy subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/imapproxy > > I think I might know what this means, but I could be wrong. However, again, I > didn't write the init script. The initscript doesn't track state by creating a /var/lock/subsys/in.imapproxyd file when running. > W: up-imapproxy incoherent-init-script-name imapproxy > > Is this because the init script is "imapproxy" and the package is > "up-imapproxy?" This seems rather trivial, especially since "up" just means > "University of Pennsylvania." The source tarball is "up-imapproxy," the daemon > is "in.imapproxy," and the service is called "imapproxy." I don't think this is > a significant issue. Neither do I. You can't completely get rid of the incoherency because the package is called up-imapproxy and the actual daemon is called in.imapproxyd, so I'd leave this as it is. More suggestions coming soon... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk Thu Sep 1 14:58:52 2005 From: paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk (Paul F. Johnson) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:58:52 +0100 Subject: For review In-Reply-To: References: <1125527537.13027.8.camel@localhost> <43163A76.9060508@n-man.com> <1125531265.13027.13.camel@localhost> <1125533579.13027.25.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <1125586733.16840.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> Hi, > ...I'm comfortable with the idea of offering this emulator for Extras. Excellent :-) > The images are another matter -- we're probably best referring people to > this site for the images in the %docs or something, especially if the > copyright state of these images tends to be in flux. Sounds like a good idea. I'll amend the docs tonight. In the mean time, will someone please do a review of the packages so I can fix them as well? TTFN Paul -- "Logic, my dear Zoe, is merely the ability to be wrong with authority" - Dr Who From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 15:18:46 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:18:46 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167252] Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509011518.j81FIkuQ015301@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167252 ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2005-09-01 11:18 EST ------- Given that this is a noarch package and hence debugfiles.list and debugsources.list are both empty, isn't a cleaner solution to just do: rm -f debugsources.list debugfiles.list at the start of %check ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 15:29:56 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:29:56 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166317] Review Request: perl-X11-Protocol In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509011529.j81FTudt017345@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-X11-Protocol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166317 ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2005-09-01 11:29 EST ------- You'll need to create a Fedora Account for yourself as described at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors step 8. FWIW, my first young'un is due to arrive in the next week or so... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 15:33:17 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:33:17 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166194] Review Request: perl-Class-DBI-Plugin-Type : Determine type information for columns In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509011533.j81FXHZ5017796@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Class-DBI-Plugin-Type : Determine type information for columns https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166194 paul at city-fan.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2005-09-01 11:33 EST ------- Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 15:48:45 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:48:45 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167252] Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509011548.j81Fmj4h019934@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167252 ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2005-09-01 11:48 EST ------- Paul, I don't know if that would work for noarch RPMS (I believe rpmbuild uses these files for creating the debuginfo RPMS). I think rpmbuild should only create the above files after %check (the %check section only appeared in RPM 4.2). I'll try to locate a couple of mails I exchanged with Ville about the subject. Meanwhile I place here the link of the review perl-Module-Signature review as it includes a couple of useful comments: https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1606 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 16:05:45 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 12:05:45 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166195] Review Request: perl-Class-DBI-SQLite : Extension to Class::DBI for sqlite In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509011605.j81G5jti023440@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Class-DBI-SQLite : Extension to Class::DBI for sqlite https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166195 paul at city-fan.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|gdk at redhat.com |paul at city-fan.org OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2005-09-01 12:05 EST ------- Review: - rpmlint clean - package and spec file names OK - package meets guidelines - license is same as perl, matches spec - spec file written in ENgish and is legible - sources match upstream - builds OK in mock on FC4 (i386) - buildreqs mostly OK - no locales, libraries, subpackages or pkgconfigs to worry about - not relocatable - no directory ownership or permissions issues - no duplicate files - %clean section present and correct - macro usage is consistent - code, not content - no large docs - docs don't affect runtime - no scriptlets Needswork: - redundant BR: perl - license text not included - BR: perl(DBD::SQLite) needed Nitpicks: - there is now a version 0.10 at CPAN - %{?_smp_mflags} could be used with make in %build -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From pmatilai at laiskiainen.org Thu Sep 1 16:37:52 2005 From: pmatilai at laiskiainen.org (Panu Matilainen) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 19:37:52 +0300 Subject: Orphan packages Message-ID: <1125592672.16604.21.camel@weasel.turre.laiskiainen.org> Hi folks, I'm afraid I have to finally face it: I'm not going to get a legalese clearance for the CVS paperwork from my company anytime soon, and package maintenance by asking around people (who have certainly been very helpful in this regard, thank you :) simply doesn't cut it long term. Here's the list of my packages which got carried into FE from fedora.us (that's how they got there in first place without me having CVS access), hereby announced as orphans: abe apt gl-117 gnofract4d libsidplay lua pexpect scorched3d SDL_ttf supertux synaptic tuxpaint tuxtype2 wbxml2 wesnoth wxPythonGTK2 xmms-sid - Panu - From toshio at tiki-lounge.com Thu Sep 1 17:21:43 2005 From: toshio at tiki-lounge.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 10:21:43 -0700 Subject: Orphan packages In-Reply-To: <1125592672.16604.21.camel@weasel.turre.laiskiainen.org> References: <1125592672.16604.21.camel@weasel.turre.laiskiainen.org> Message-ID: <1125595303.3266.138.camel@localhost> On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 19:37 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: > pexpect I did some work on this during the fedora.us => FE transition and would be willing to pick it up. If your employer comes through with the legal paperwork, I'll be willing to hand it back as well. -Toshio -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 17:33:01 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 13:33:01 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167252] Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509011733.j81HX1i4003191@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167252 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2005-09-01 13:32 EST ------- The most severe reasons for disabling Module::Signature checks is that the checks may need a network connection to a keyserver for fetching the keys, and more importantly, it might silently import the fetched keys to the builder's keyring. I've documented my .02? of this stuff in the packager's handbook some time ago, snapshot here: http://koti.welho.com/vskytta/packagers-handbook/packagers-handbook.html#guidelines-perl-cpansign -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 17:34:53 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 13:34:53 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167252] Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509011734.j81HYrP6003428@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167252 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2005-09-01 13:34 EST ------- Oh, and debug*.list are created by find-debuginfo.sh, which runs at end of %install (ie. before %check). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 17:39:14 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 13:39:14 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167258] Review Request: up-imapproxy: University of Pennsylvania IMAP Proxy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509011739.j81HdEFQ004291@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: up-imapproxy: University of Pennsylvania IMAP Proxy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167258 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2005-09-01 13:38 EST ------- Jeff, FYI: you can run rpmlint with the -i/--info option and it will emit a more verbose explanation about about most warnings/errors. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From ville.skytta at iki.fi Thu Sep 1 17:43:49 2005 From: ville.skytta at iki.fi (Ville =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Skytt=E4?=) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 20:43:49 +0300 Subject: check-rpaths on fedora-rpmdevtools: What's the purpose of it? In-Reply-To: <513a3b305090100028607036@mail.gmail.com> References: <513a3b30508312358611d36cb@mail.gmail.com> <513a3b305090100028607036@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1125596629.2946.144.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 15:02 +0800, Didier Casse wrote: > "but what is the REASON for this rpath removal policy? i'm curious > to know why! > i'm wondering how it causes problems or breaks things or such... ? i'd really > like to know! :)" > > I also have no idea about the internals and assume it's there for a > reason. Ville provided me with some links and explanation but > suggested that I email here to know more. Yes I want to know more and > post it to the e-devel mailing list. Thanks for any insights. Relevant bits of my above mentioned PM reply: ---- Here's something: http://people.debian.org/~che/personal/rpath-considered-harmful http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?RpathIssue Mind you, the case of "standard library paths" in RPATH is the least severe "error" detected by check-rpaths. What's more useful in it in general are the checks for RPATHS that might cause security problems (empty RPATHs, buildroot remainders etc). As far as I can tell, standard paths like /usr/lib in RPATH are mainly of academic interest and the cases where they'd bite are very rare in practice. But if they don't add any value whatsoever on our platform (and can at least theoretically be harmful), why not just get rid of them? For more information, see the contents of the check-rpaths and check-rpaths-worker scripts. From ville.skytta at iki.fi Thu Sep 1 17:51:31 2005 From: ville.skytta at iki.fi (Ville =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Skytt=E4?=) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 20:51:31 +0300 Subject: Orphan packages In-Reply-To: <1125592672.16604.21.camel@weasel.turre.laiskiainen.org> References: <1125592672.16604.21.camel@weasel.turre.laiskiainen.org> Message-ID: <1125597091.2946.147.camel@localhost.localdomain> > Here's the list of my packages which got carried into FE from > fedora.us (that's how they got there in first place without me having > CVS access), hereby announced as orphans: All added to the "potentially unmaintained" section of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/OrphanedPackages From steve at silug.org Thu Sep 1 18:53:33 2005 From: steve at silug.org (Steven Pritchard) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 13:53:33 -0500 Subject: Orphan packages In-Reply-To: <1125592672.16604.21.camel@weasel.turre.laiskiainen.org> References: <1125592672.16604.21.camel@weasel.turre.laiskiainen.org> Message-ID: <20050901185330.GA5780@osiris.silug.org> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 07:37:52PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: > supertux This has been needing an update for a little while now. I'll do that now, but if anyone else wants to maintain the package long-term, I'll step aside. (Or, if nobody else wants it, I'll take it.) For that matter, I'll take these too, if nobody else wants them: > gl-117 > tuxpaint > tuxtype2 Steve -- Steven Pritchard - K&S Pritchard Enterprises, Inc. Email: steve at kspei.com http://www.kspei.com/ Phone: (618)398-3000 Mobile: (618)567-7320 From iago at iagorubio.com Thu Sep 1 19:07:10 2005 From: iago at iagorubio.com (Iago Rubio) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:07:10 +0200 Subject: FUSE - Z80 ROM documentation In-Reply-To: <4316F90D.4080801@hhs.nl> References: <1125564287.16840.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125570035.31613.4.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <4316F90D.4080801@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <1125601631.20948.5.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 14:50 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Iago Rubio wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 09:44 +0100, Paul F. Johnson wrote: > > > >>Hi, > >> > >>Further to my requests about the inclusion of the Z80 ROMs within the > >>Fuse package, I've been forwarded the following URLS > >> > >>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.sinclair/msg/c092cc4d4943131e?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&th=c7c6be9db6ecba9b&rnum=1&ic=1 > >> > >>This one states the position of Amstrad (the owners of the ROMS). > >>Basically, as long as the copyright message is kept and no fee is > >>charged, they're good to go. They can be released as images with the > >>blessing of the owners. > > > > > > I don't think it could apply for Extras: > > > > - It's non free (not OSI License). > > > Its a frimware blob and thus dopesn't need to be OSI, it falls under the > shareware data file exception. > > > - It does not allow commercial distribution. > > > > To quote: [snip] > So commercial distribution is fine, as long as the price asked is not > for the amstrad code, but for other parts (such as the cd the code is on) May be I'm wrong then, but if it stands as firmware exception, it should match: "Explicit permission is given by the owner to freely distribute without restrictions". The restriction to sell it, is - no doubt - a restriction. The criteria "it cannot be sold because it's freely available" doesn't stands for me. It does not change the fact that the ROMs have distribution restrictions, as you cannot charge for them. Let me say I've got nothing against including this package - nor I'm willing to sell it. I'm just pointing to the current packaging guidelines which explicitly states that no distribution restrictions are allowed in firmware packages. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#head-9c943edd0769408cb98c2fc10f70baaba798428b Regards. -- Iago Rubio From bugs.michael at gmx.net Thu Sep 1 20:03:35 2005 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 22:03:35 +0200 Subject: Orphan packages In-Reply-To: <1125592672.16604.21.camel@weasel.turre.laiskiainen.org> References: <1125592672.16604.21.camel@weasel.turre.laiskiainen.org> Message-ID: <20050901220335.330ffe55.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 19:37:52 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: > libsidplay > xmms-sid > wesnoth I can take these, since I'm familiar with them, and until somebody with high interest in wesnoth steps up or doesn't like the current package. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 20:25:53 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:25:53 -0400 Subject: [Bug 165919] Review Request: pam_ssh Pluggable Authentication Module for ssh In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509012025.j81KPrGx001902@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pam_ssh Pluggable Authentication Module for ssh https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165919 ------- Additional Comments From tcallawa at redhat.com 2005-09-01 16:25 EST ------- Or, just bump all three spec files to 2%{?dist}, retag them all, and rebuild them all. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From i at stingr.net Thu Sep 1 20:33:54 2005 From: i at stingr.net (Paul P Komkoff Jr) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 00:33:54 +0400 Subject: How to package kernel module Message-ID: <20050901203354.GX1559@stingr.net> Is there any consensus on kernel module packaging? I am willing to submit a whole bunch of telephony-related stuff. Whole bunch includes zaptel. Zaptel includes a small pile of kernel modules. Should I use livna template (kernel-module-zaptel) or base template (zaptel-kernel) ? How I need to decorate my specfile to have module subpackages built for smp AND up kernel? -- Paul P 'Stingray' Komkoff Jr // http://stingr.net/key <- my pgp key This message represents the official view of the voices in my head From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 20:36:54 2005 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom 'spot' Callaway) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:36:54 -0500 Subject: FUSE - Z80 ROM documentation In-Reply-To: <1125601631.20948.5.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> References: <1125564287.16840.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125570035.31613.4.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <4316F90D.4080801@hhs.nl> <1125601631.20948.5.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> Message-ID: <1125607014.2896.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 21:07 +0200, Iago Rubio wrote: > May be I'm wrong then, but if it stands as firmware exception, it should > match: "Explicit permission is given by the owner to freely distribute > without restrictions". > > The restriction to sell it, is - no doubt - a restriction. Yeah. This is going to be a tricky point, but it is a restriction on distribution. You might be able to clarify the situation by contacting the upstream copyright holder (sinclair? amstrad?) and getting them to provide (in digital writing) permission to freely distribute the ROMS without any restriction. Even getting them just to say "We permit our ROMS to be freely distributed without restriction" will meet the FE guidelines. ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 20:45:20 2005 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom 'spot' Callaway) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:45:20 -0500 Subject: How to package kernel module In-Reply-To: <20050901203354.GX1559@stingr.net> References: <20050901203354.GX1559@stingr.net> Message-ID: <1125607520.2896.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 00:33 +0400, Paul P Komkoff Jr wrote: > Is there any consensus on kernel module packaging? > > > I am willing to submit a whole bunch of telephony-related stuff. Whole > bunch includes zaptel. Zaptel includes a small pile of kernel modules. > > Should I use livna template (kernel-module-zaptel) or base template > (zaptel-kernel) ? How I need to decorate my specfile to have module > subpackages built for smp AND up kernel? Right now, FE is not setup for kernel-module-* packages. We still have several lightyears to go before we can get there. On top of that, I'm very hesitant to include kernel-module-* packages on principle. I feel strongly that most of the packages that we could include (open source, not patent infringing) should be going upstream so that they can get in the FC kernels. So, my first question is: Why aren't the zaptel kernel modules in the upstream 2.6 tree? ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 20:44:31 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:44:31 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167354] New: Review Request: amavisd-new Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167354 Summary: Review Request: amavisd-new Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All URL: http://www.ijs.si/software/amavisd/ OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: gdk at redhat.com ReportedBy: steve at silug.org QAContact: dkl at redhat.com CC: fedora-extras-list at redhat.com Spec Name or Url: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/amavisd-new/amavisd-new.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/amavisd-new-2.3.2-10.src.rpm Description: amavisd-new is a high-performance and reliable interface between mailer (MTA) and one or more content checkers: virus scanners, and/or Mail::SpamAssassin Perl module. It is written in Perl, assuring high reliability, portability and maintainability. It talks to MTA via (E)SMTP or LMTP, or by using helper programs. No timing gaps exist in the design, which could cause a mail loss. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 20:44:37 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:44:37 -0400 Subject: [Bug 163776] Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509012044.j81KibI8005147@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed Alias: FE-NEW https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=163776 steve at silug.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |167354 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 20:44:56 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:44:56 -0400 Subject: [Bug 165900] Review Request: hunkyfonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509012044.j81Kiu7G005229@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hunkyfonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165900 Nicolas.Mailhot at laPoste.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |Nicolas.Mailhot at laPoste.net ------- Additional Comments From Nicolas.Mailhot at laPoste.net 2005-09-01 16:44 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7) > I didn't read ?5 of the Copyright FAQ when I changed the license, which was a > mistake. BTW, is there a good reason why this project is separate from dejavu ? The dejavu team has been handling his Vera fork in a wonderful way (they're responsive to RFC's, merge back other forks, communicate on the gnome font list, do frequent releases...). I don't think users will appreciate it if we start dumping on them all the Vera derivatives that exist in the wild. Moreover, if Bitstream continues to do nothing with Vera, I suspect Dejavu will replace it soonish in FC -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk Thu Sep 1 20:51:56 2005 From: paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk (Paul F. Johnson) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:51:56 +0100 Subject: FUSE - Z80 ROM documentation In-Reply-To: <1125607014.2896.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1125564287.16840.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125570035.31613.4.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <4316F90D.4080801@hhs.nl> <1125601631.20948.5.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <1125607014.2896.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1125607916.7412.8.camel@localhost> Hi, > You might be able to clarify the situation by contacting the upstream > copyright holder (sinclair? amstrad?) and getting them to provide (in > digital writing) permission to freely distribute the ROMS without any > restriction. Amstrad bought Sinclair lock, stock and barrel in 1986. The posting URL I posted up was from one of the people from Amstrad and someone on comp.sys.sinclair > Even getting them just to say "We permit our ROMS to be freely > distributed without restriction" will meet the FE guidelines. Okay, we have three camps here. 1. Don't do it, naughty restrictions. 2. As long as Amstrad say do it, do it (Tom). 3. Go with it, I'm happy (Greg). Can I have a clear, one voice as to what I have to do here. I don't have a problem contacting Amstrad (though how quick they'll reply is another matter!), but considering Greg has said he's happy, is there any milage in doing it? TTFN Paul (waiting on his lovely, cuddly packages to be reviewed) -- "A lot of football success is in the mind. You must believe you are the best and then make sure that you are. In my time at Liverpool we always said we had the best two teams on Merseyside, Liverpool and Liverpool Reserves." - Bill Shankly From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 20:52:37 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:52:37 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167354] Review Request: amavisd-new In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509012052.j81Kqbkq006631@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: amavisd-new https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167354 ------- Additional Comments From steve at silug.org 2005-09-01 16:52 EST ------- Must remember to check these things *before* I submit a package... SRPM URL: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/amavisd-new-2.3.3-1.src.rpm * Thu Sep 01 2005 Steven Pritchard 2.3.3-1 - Update to 2.3.3 - Remove explicit dependencies on core perl modules -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From gdk at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 20:55:21 2005 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:55:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: FUSE - Z80 ROM documentation In-Reply-To: <1125607916.7412.8.camel@localhost> References: <1125564287.16840.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125570035.31613.4.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <4316F90D.4080801@hhs.nl> <1125601631.20948.5.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <1125607014.2896.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125607916.7412.8.camel@localhost> Message-ID: There are two separate questions: * The emulator. * The ROMs. I am happy with the emulator. I think it's safer *not* to ship the ROMs themselves. And yet, I will defer to Spot's analysis, since he is the owner of the packaging guidelines. Spot, if you need me to get better legal advice, I will. --g _____________________ ____________________________________________ Greg DeKoenigsberg ] [ the future masters of technology will have Community Relations ] [ to be lighthearted and intelligent. the Red Hat ] [ machine easily masters the grim and the ] [ dumb. --mcluhan On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Paul F. Johnson wrote: > Hi, > > > You might be able to clarify the situation by contacting the upstream > > copyright holder (sinclair? amstrad?) and getting them to provide (in > > digital writing) permission to freely distribute the ROMS without any > > restriction. > > Amstrad bought Sinclair lock, stock and barrel in 1986. The posting URL > I posted up was from one of the people from Amstrad and someone on > comp.sys.sinclair > > > Even getting them just to say "We permit our ROMS to be freely > > distributed without restriction" will meet the FE guidelines. > > Okay, we have three camps here. > > 1. Don't do it, naughty restrictions. > 2. As long as Amstrad say do it, do it (Tom). > 3. Go with it, I'm happy (Greg). > > Can I have a clear, one voice as to what I have to do here. I don't have > a problem contacting Amstrad (though how quick they'll reply is another > matter!), but considering Greg has said he's happy, is there any milage > in doing it? > > TTFN > > Paul > (waiting on his lovely, cuddly packages to be reviewed) > -- > "A lot of football success is in the mind. You must believe you are the > best and then make sure that you are. In my time at Liverpool we always > said we had the best two teams on Merseyside, Liverpool and Liverpool > Reserves." - Bill Shankly > > -- > fedora-extras-list mailing list > fedora-extras-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list > From davej at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 20:58:21 2005 From: davej at redhat.com (Dave Jones) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:58:21 -0400 Subject: How to package kernel module In-Reply-To: <1125607520.2896.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20050901203354.GX1559@stingr.net> <1125607520.2896.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20050901205821.GE24910@redhat.com> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 03:45:20PM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 00:33 +0400, Paul P Komkoff Jr wrote: > > Is there any consensus on kernel module packaging? > > > > I am willing to submit a whole bunch of telephony-related stuff. Whole > > bunch includes zaptel. Zaptel includes a small pile of kernel modules. > > > > Should I use livna template (kernel-module-zaptel) or base template > > (zaptel-kernel) ? How I need to decorate my specfile to have module > > subpackages built for smp AND up kernel? > > Right now, FE is not setup for kernel-module-* packages. We still have > several lightyears to go before we can get there. > > On top of that, I'm very hesitant to include kernel-module-* packages on > principle. I feel strongly that most of the packages that we could > include (open source, not patent infringing) should be going upstream so > that they can get in the FC kernels. > > So, my first question is: Why aren't the zaptel kernel modules in the > upstream 2.6 tree? It's a tough call. A lot of out-of-tree modules are in a really bad shape and nowhere near standards for submission upstream. A few days ago I looked at the ralink driver for example. It needs so much effort to make it a) look like a linux driver b) use in-kernel functionality instead of reinventing everything that it's probably easier to rewrite the driver from scratch when the 80211 code settles down than it would be to clean it up. This might sound like a positive reason _for_ including it in extras, but the situation is a lot of these drivers are of so poor quality that I really have no faith in them at all. If I get kernel bug reports filed with modules I don't recognise, the first thing I'm going to ask is to try and repeat it without those modules, regardless of whether they're GPL, have full source etc. There's also another problem. When people start depending on out-of-tree kernel modules, they become reluctant to upgrade their kernel. For eg, I'm still getting new bugs filed against the 2.6.10 kernel because people are tied to a particular driver (not just binary ones either, opensource ones that just don't compile against newer trees). Despite the fact there have been numerous updates since then, all the way up to 2.6.12. If people hold onto old kernels due to out of tree modules lagging behind, I'm going to be left with little alternative than to close bugs filed against older releases as CANTFIX, and have them reopen them if/when they ever upgrade. [Note: I've not actually reviewed the Zaptel drivers, the comments above are a general statement]. Dave From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 21:13:01 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:13:01 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166186] Review Request: perl-Class-DBI-AsForm : Produce HTML form elements for database columns In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509012113.j81LD1vN010723@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Class-DBI-AsForm : Produce HTML form elements for database columns https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166186 Bug 166186 depends on bug 166194, which changed state. Bug 166194 Summary: Review Request: perl-Class-DBI-Plugin-Type : Determine type information for columns https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166194 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk Thu Sep 1 21:14:24 2005 From: paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk (Paul F. Johnson) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:14:24 +0100 Subject: FUSE - Z80 ROM documentation In-Reply-To: References: <1125564287.16840.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125570035.31613.4.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <4316F90D.4080801@hhs.nl> <1125601631.20948.5.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <1125607014.2896.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125607916.7412.8.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <1125609264.7412.13.camel@localhost> Hi, > * The emulator. > * The ROMs. > > I am happy with the emulator. I think it's safer *not* to ship the ROMs > themselves. Eh? The ROMs are essential for all of the 8 bit machines and the wording from Amstrad is that as long as you're not selling (which we're not), then you have their blessing. It does get a bit fuzzy in that if you're charging, as long as it's not for the ROMS, they're cool with it. > And yet, I will defer to Spot's analysis, since he is the owner of the > packaging guidelines. Spot, if you need me to get better legal advice, I > will. I'll hold off for now. I would appreciate it though if you could ask the RH law-type-folks over the packaging of the ROMS. Remember, these ROMS are not the same as a MAME or SNES ROM, but are (effectively) the OS of the machine. TTFN Paul (currently packaging fuse-utils-0.7.0) -- "A lot of football success is in the mind. You must believe you are the best and then make sure that you are. In my time at Liverpool we always said we had the best two teams on Merseyside, Liverpool and Liverpool Reserves." - Bill Shankly From jspaleta at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 21:17:23 2005 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:17:23 -0400 Subject: How to package kernel module In-Reply-To: <20050901205821.GE24910@redhat.com> References: <20050901203354.GX1559@stingr.net> <1125607520.2896.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050901205821.GE24910@redhat.com> Message-ID: <604aa7910509011417286d560e@mail.gmail.com> On 9/1/05, Dave Jones wrote: > This might sound like a positive reason _for_ including it in extras, > but the situation is a lot of these drivers are of so poor quality > that I really have no faith in them at all. If I get kernel bug > reports filed with modules I don't recognise, the first thing I'm > going to ask is to try and repeat it without those modules, regardless > of whether they're GPL, have full source etc. Assuming kernel modules will at some point exist in Extras.....is there a way to have Extras modules 'taint' the log messages so that its easier to spot this sort of situation so the general triagers can ask reporters to reproduce the problem with the addon modules removed? Since you make it sound like a very common situation, is there a way to make it easier to spot so you don't have to be the only one asking for people to retest? > > There's also another problem. When people start depending on out-of-tree > kernel modules, they become reluctant to upgrade their kernel. This is a very tough nut. I really don't have any policy or even any wacky un-implementable tool implementations that are going to pretend to address this. As long as upstream kernel is driving forward agressively without an established API for external module writers there really isn't much to be done here. Extras modules are simply going to break with kernel updates on occasion and downstream packagers are going to have to bust their hump fixing the addon modules. -jef From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 21:19:36 2005 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom 'spot' Callaway) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:19:36 -0500 Subject: FUSE - Z80 ROM documentation In-Reply-To: <1125609264.7412.13.camel@localhost> References: <1125564287.16840.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125570035.31613.4.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <4316F90D.4080801@hhs.nl> <1125601631.20948.5.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <1125607014.2896.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125607916.7412.8.camel@localhost> <1125609264.7412.13.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <1125609576.2896.31.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 22:14 +0100, Paul F. Johnson wrote: > Hi, > > > * The emulator. > > * The ROMs. > > > > I am happy with the emulator. I think it's safer *not* to ship the ROMs > > themselves. > > Eh? The ROMs are essential for all of the 8 bit machines and the wording > from Amstrad is that as long as you're not selling (which we're not), > then you have their blessing. It does get a bit fuzzy in that if you're > charging, as long as it's not for the ROMS, they're cool with it. We just need to get them to say that the ROMs are freely distributable. If this is already said by them someplace, then we're good (show it to me). The emulator itself should be ok to include now. ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 21:21:40 2005 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom 'spot' Callaway) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:21:40 -0500 Subject: How to package kernel module In-Reply-To: <604aa7910509011417286d560e@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050901203354.GX1559@stingr.net> <1125607520.2896.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050901205821.GE24910@redhat.com> <604aa7910509011417286d560e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1125609700.2896.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 17:17 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > This is a very tough nut. I really don't have any policy or even any > wacky un-implementable tool implementations that are going to pretend > to address this. As long as upstream kernel is driving forward > agressively without an established API for external module writers > there really isn't much to be done here. Extras modules are simply > going to break with kernel updates on occasion and downstream > packagers are going to have to bust their hump fixing the addon > modules. As I've stated before, the only way to solve this issue is to build kernel-module-* for all existing kernel packages, and to have some way for kernel-module-* to get rebuilt when new kernel errata are released. We're obviously not anywhere near that yet. ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! From davej at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 21:22:40 2005 From: davej at redhat.com (Dave Jones) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:22:40 -0400 Subject: How to package kernel module In-Reply-To: <604aa7910509011417286d560e@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050901203354.GX1559@stingr.net> <1125607520.2896.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050901205821.GE24910@redhat.com> <604aa7910509011417286d560e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050901212240.GG24910@redhat.com> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 05:17:23PM -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On 9/1/05, Dave Jones wrote: > > This might sound like a positive reason _for_ including it in extras, > > but the situation is a lot of these drivers are of so poor quality > > that I really have no faith in them at all. If I get kernel bug > > reports filed with modules I don't recognise, the first thing I'm > > going to ask is to try and repeat it without those modules, regardless > > of whether they're GPL, have full source etc. > > Assuming kernel modules will at some point exist in Extras.....is > there a way to have Extras modules 'taint' the log messages so that > its easier to spot this sort of situation so the general triagers can > ask reporters to reproduce the problem with the addon modules removed? The fact that they won't be signed with the same gpg key that we sign modules with at build time means they'll show up in lsmod as 'U' (unsigned), so they tend to stick out like a sore thumb. This has actually been really useful for diagnosing some RHEL4 bugs, where people do things like rebuilding a different jbd.ko to the one we ship. > This is a very tough nut. I really don't have any policy or even any > wacky un-implementable tool implementations that are going to pretend > to address this. As long as upstream kernel is driving forward > agressively without an established API for external module writers > there really isn't much to be done here. Extras modules are simply > going to break with kernel updates on occasion and downstream > packagers are going to have to bust their hump fixing the addon > modules. As Spot pointed out though, the one real answer is 'pressure maintainers into getting their code upstream'. For some modules it'll just be a lot more work than for others, but ultimately, everyone benefits from the results. Dave From davej at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 21:23:40 2005 From: davej at redhat.com (Dave Jones) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:23:40 -0400 Subject: How to package kernel module In-Reply-To: <1125609700.2896.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20050901203354.GX1559@stingr.net> <1125607520.2896.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050901205821.GE24910@redhat.com> <604aa7910509011417286d560e@mail.gmail.com> <1125609700.2896.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20050901212340.GH24910@redhat.com> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 04:21:40PM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 17:17 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > > This is a very tough nut. I really don't have any policy or even any > > wacky un-implementable tool implementations that are going to pretend > > to address this. As long as upstream kernel is driving forward > > agressively without an established API for external module writers > > there really isn't much to be done here. Extras modules are simply > > going to break with kernel updates on occasion and downstream > > packagers are going to have to bust their hump fixing the addon > > modules. > > As I've stated before, the only way to solve this issue is to build > kernel-module-* for all existing kernel packages, and to have some way > for kernel-module-* to get rebuilt when new kernel errata are released. That assumes that it'll build ok on the new kernel. Sure you can automate it to work most of the time, but there will be times where manual intervention is necessary. Dave From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 21:24:58 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:24:58 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166193] Review Request: perl-Class-DBI-Plugin-RetrieveAll : More complex retrieve_all() for Class::DBI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509012124.j81LOwkv012874@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Class-DBI-Plugin-RetrieveAll : More complex retrieve_all() for Class::DBI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166193 ------- Additional Comments From tcallawa at redhat.com 2005-09-01 17:24 EST ------- -3 covers em all: SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/Maypole/perl-Class-DBI-Plugin-RetrieveAll-1.01-3.src.rpm SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/Maypole/perl-Class-DBI-Plugin-RetrieveAll.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 21:30:37 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167364] New: Review Request: Fuse utilities Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167364 Summary: Review Request: Fuse utilities Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All URL: http://www.all-the- johnsons.co.uk/emulators/spectrum.html OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: gdk at redhat.com ReportedBy: paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk QAContact: dkl at redhat.com CC: fedora-extras-list at redhat.com Spec Name or Url: http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/emulators/downloads/fuse-utils-0.7.0.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/emulators/downloads/fuse-utils-0.7.0.src.rpm Description: Fuse utils are 10 small command line programs for use with the FUSE ZX Spectrum emulator software -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 21:30:54 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:30:54 -0400 Subject: [Bug 163776] Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509012130.j81LUsVE013803@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed Alias: FE-NEW https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=163776 paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |167364 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk Thu Sep 1 21:32:52 2005 From: paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk (Paul F. Johnson) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:32:52 +0100 Subject: FUSE - Z80 ROM documentation In-Reply-To: <1125609576.2896.31.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1125564287.16840.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125570035.31613.4.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <4316F90D.4080801@hhs.nl> <1125601631.20948.5.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <1125607014.2896.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125607916.7412.8.camel@localhost> <1125609264.7412.13.camel@localhost> <1125609576.2896.31.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1125610372.7412.19.camel@localhost> Hi, > We just need to get them to say that the ROMs are freely distributable. > If this is already said by them someplace, then we're good (show it to > me). I posted a URL to the list (below) which says exactly what you're after. http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.sinclair/msg/c092cc4d4943131e?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&th=c7c6be9db6ecba9b&rnum=1&ic=1 > The emulator itself should be ok to include now. Excellent - someone fancy sponsoring them then? Could you also look at a related package - #167364 , a small number of utilities for ZX Spectrum images (they convert the file formats, list BASIC and the such) TTFN Paul -- "A lot of football success is in the mind. You must believe you are the best and then make sure that you are. In my time at Liverpool we always said we had the best two teams on Merseyside, Liverpool and Liverpool Reserves." - Bill Shankly From paul at cypherpunks.ca Thu Sep 1 21:39:04 2005 From: paul at cypherpunks.ca (Paul Wouters) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:39:04 +0200 (CEST) Subject: How to package kernel module In-Reply-To: <20050901205821.GE24910@redhat.com> References: <20050901203354.GX1559@stingr.net> <1125607520.2896.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050901205821.GE24910@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Dave Jones wrote: > There's also another problem. When people start depending on out-of-tree > kernel modules, they become reluctant to upgrade their kernel. > For eg, I'm still getting new bugs filed against the 2.6.10 kernel > because people are tied to a particular driver (not just binary ones either, > opensource ones that just don't compile against newer trees). > Despite the fact there have been numerous updates since then, all the way > up to 2.6.12. If people hold onto old kernels due to out of tree modules > lagging behind, I'm going to be left with little alternative than > to close bugs filed against older releases as CANTFIX, and have them > reopen them if/when they ever upgrade. Blame the kernel developers for that. In our case, we have been bitten by a lot of the recent 2.6 kernels, because of changes to the API, or deprecation without any kind of compatibility check in the kernel. Fedora is making matters worse by deprecating functionality as a patch in a previous kernel as compared to the linus kernel. This horribly complicates things for out of tree module developers. We can no longer do something like : #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(2,6,13) because in a Fedora kernel this patch is already applied to 2.6.12 or 2.6.11. Instead, we now have to add a variable that we set for 2.6.13 kernels AND have to hack into the spec file for Fedora based kernels to decide at build time whether or not this Fedora kernel version has that particular code in earlier kernel versions too. This has now happened to us I believe in 2.6.8, 2.6.11 and 2.6.12 / 2.6.13. eg we needed to create HAVE_SOCK_ZAPPED, NET_26_12_SKALLOC and HAVE_SOCK_SECURITY. It is not really making rpm building easier. And finally, whoever changed the argument order for sk_alloc deserves to be on a life support machine running said kernel. Paul, back to debugging his kernel module for 2.6.12..... From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 21:46:22 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:46:22 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166205] Review Request: alleyoop : Graphical front-end to the Valgrind memory checker for x86 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509012146.j81LkMKe016564@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: alleyoop : Graphical front-end to the Valgrind memory checker for x86 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166205 ------- Additional Comments From tcallawa at redhat.com 2005-09-01 17:46 EST ------- -3 has all these items fixed. Tested with /bin/bash on valgrind 3.0 in rawhide. SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/alleyoop-0.9.0-3.src.rpm SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/alleyoop.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From jspaleta at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 21:48:12 2005 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:48:12 -0400 Subject: FUSE - Z80 ROM documentation In-Reply-To: <1125609264.7412.13.camel@localhost> References: <1125564287.16840.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125570035.31613.4.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <4316F90D.4080801@hhs.nl> <1125601631.20948.5.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <1125607014.2896.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125607916.7412.8.camel@localhost> <1125609264.7412.13.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <604aa79105090114483ec3ff5b@mail.gmail.com> On 9/1/05, Paul F. Johnson wrote: > Eh? The ROMs are essential for all of the 8 bit machines and the wording > from Amstrad is that as long as you're not selling (which we're not), > then you have their blessing. That is absolutely not good enough. At some point in the future... there very well maybe be iso images of Extras that we as a project will be encouraging vendors to sell.. vendors like cheapbytes for example. Not only that but it has to be clear that such 3rd parties or any party who wants to make a fedora based distro can take anything from Extras, rebrand the collection of software and "sell" it via pressed media or binary downloads as is the case for all other projects in Extras. This isn't a self-serving community, we have to think hard about the potential infringement any derivative work might run afoul of. If people aren't free to make a derivative work that includes these ROM packages and sell that derivative work..then that package has no place in Extras. And frankly its just not clear to me that the one group posting provides enough legal cover. Let's put it this way.. if they had just said "no commercial use" then the ROMS would not be allowable. Instead they say something much more vague that may or may not be interpreted as "no commercial use." > It does get a bit fuzzy in that if you're charging, as long as it's not for the ROMS, they're > cool with it. The wording in the groups posting...is extremely vague here. Who exactly gets to make the judgement as to whether the cost of a future pressed ISO sent to you in the mail or a future binary download you paid access for includes a value placed on the ROM packages or not? This sounds to me like its open to rather wide interpretation...and that could very well mean a lawsuit if the copyrights change hands again..or if the company management changes. If i generously interpret what that group posting said..sure it sounds okay..but looking at it from the standpoint of potential legal problems. the one phrase "in any sense, charging" is a big red flag to me. -jef From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 21:50:41 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:50:41 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166195] Review Request: perl-Class-DBI-SQLite : Extension to Class::DBI for sqlite In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509012150.j81Lof48018077@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Class-DBI-SQLite : Extension to Class::DBI for sqlite https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166195 ------- Additional Comments From tcallawa at redhat.com 2005-09-01 17:50 EST ------- 0.10-1 has all the issues covered. SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/Maypole/perl-Class-DBI-SQLite-0.10-1.src.rpm SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/Maypole/perl-Class-DBI-SQLite.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From jspaleta at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 22:00:27 2005 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:00:27 -0400 Subject: How to package kernel module In-Reply-To: <1125609700.2896.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20050901203354.GX1559@stingr.net> <1125607520.2896.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050901205821.GE24910@redhat.com> <604aa7910509011417286d560e@mail.gmail.com> <1125609700.2896.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <604aa791050901150053f0f8df@mail.gmail.com> On 9/1/05, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 17:17 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > As I've stated before, the only way to solve this issue is to build > kernel-module-* for all existing kernel packages, and to have some way > for kernel-module-* to get rebuilt when new kernel errata are released. > > We're obviously not anywhere near that yet. I think you misunderstood.. but Dave got my gist. In this post i was talking simply about the rate of change internally of the kernel itself. There isn't an API out-of-tree module writers can rely on, so out-of-tree modules will break on occasion with kernel updates, regardless of how much build automation is present. Sure build automation would help speed up the timescales of best case situations... and would help the turn around time for addon modules that dont rebuild cleanly. But when modules do have a problem rebuilding against a kernel update it could be very difficult for downstream packagers to fix without some significant support from module developers directly. And even then it might be a noticable time-lag. -jef From gdk at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 22:03:33 2005 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:03:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: FUSE - Z80 ROM documentation In-Reply-To: <604aa79105090114483ec3ff5b@mail.gmail.com> References: <1125564287.16840.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125570035.31613.4.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <4316F90D.4080801@hhs.nl> <1125601631.20948.5.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <1125607014.2896.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125607916.7412.8.camel@localhost> <1125609264.7412.13.camel@localhost> <604aa79105090114483ec3ff5b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: A big +1 to Jef. This is precisely why we've avoided the incorporation of "content" so assiduously. The ROMs, it seems to me, are yet another example of content with ambiguous licensing. Code, in our world, has very clear licensing parameters; either it conforms to an acceptable license, or it doesn't. Very black and white. Content is seldom that simple, because it seldom has copyright status explicitly associated with it in the same way that code does. What we need is an unambiguous policy around shipping content. If that policy is: "don't ship content," then we're done. If that policy is: "explicit assignment to the public domain," then we need a way to keep track of those assignments. If that policy is: "keep track of the various content licenses, like the various docs licenses and the CC licenses, and like the CC:SA and so forth," then we need to figure out which content licenses we support, and which we don't. And that, folks, will take time. --g _____________________ ____________________________________________ Greg DeKoenigsberg ] [ the future masters of technology will have Community Relations ] [ to be lighthearted and intelligent. the Red Hat ] [ machine easily masters the grim and the ] [ dumb. --mcluhan On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On 9/1/05, Paul F. Johnson wrote: > > Eh? The ROMs are essential for all of the 8 bit machines and the wording > > from Amstrad is that as long as you're not selling (which we're not), > > then you have their blessing. > > That is absolutely not good enough. At some point in the future... > there very well maybe be iso images of Extras that we as a project > will be encouraging vendors to sell.. vendors like cheapbytes for > example. Not only that but it has to be clear that such 3rd parties or > any party who wants to make a fedora based distro can take anything > from Extras, rebrand the collection of software and "sell" it via > pressed media or binary downloads as is the case for all other > projects in Extras. This isn't a self-serving community, we have to > think hard about the potential infringement any derivative work might > run afoul of. If people aren't free to make a derivative work that > includes these ROM packages and sell that derivative work..then that > package has no place in Extras. And frankly its just not clear to me > that the one group posting provides enough legal cover. Let's put it > this way.. if they had just said "no commercial use" then the ROMS > would not be allowable. Instead they say something much more vague > that may or may not be interpreted as "no commercial use." > > > > It does get a bit fuzzy in that if you're charging, as long as it's not for the ROMS, they're > > cool with it. > > The wording in the groups posting...is extremely vague here. Who > exactly gets to make the judgement as to whether the cost of a future > pressed ISO sent to you in the mail or a future binary download you > paid access for includes a value placed on the ROM packages or not? > This sounds to me like its open to rather wide interpretation...and > that could very well mean a lawsuit if the copyrights change hands > again..or if the company management changes. If i generously > interpret what that group posting said..sure it sounds okay..but > looking at it from the standpoint of potential legal problems. the one > phrase "in any sense, charging" is a big red flag to me. > > > -jef > > -- > fedora-extras-list mailing list > fedora-extras-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list > From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk Thu Sep 1 22:06:10 2005 From: paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk (Paul F. Johnson) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:06:10 +0100 Subject: FUSE - Z80 ROM documentation In-Reply-To: <604aa79105090114483ec3ff5b@mail.gmail.com> References: <1125564287.16840.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125570035.31613.4.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <4316F90D.4080801@hhs.nl> <1125601631.20948.5.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <1125607014.2896.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125607916.7412.8.camel@localhost> <1125609264.7412.13.camel@localhost> <604aa79105090114483ec3ff5b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1125612370.7412.50.camel@localhost> Hi, > On 9/1/05, Paul F. Johnson wrote: > > Eh? The ROMs are essential for all of the 8 bit machines and the wording > > from Amstrad is that as long as you're not selling (which we're not), > > then you have their blessing. > > That is absolutely not good enough. At some point in the future... > there very well maybe be iso images of Extras that we as a project > will be encouraging vendors to sell.. vendors like cheapbytes for > example. Fair enough - I can understand that. The question is there though is what is being charged for? If it is to cover the media, then there is no charge being made for the software. If the cost to also cover cheapbytes costs (for example), then again, the software is not being charged for. There is also precedent on this in that the emulator has been published on the Linux Format July cover CD and DVD. The magazine is available world wide. There was no charge made for the software. > Not only that but it has to be clear that such 3rd parties or > any party who wants to make a fedora based distro can take anything > from Extras, rebrand the collection of software and "sell" it via > pressed media or binary downloads as is the case for all other > projects in Extras. This isn't a self-serving community, we have to > think hard about the potential infringement any derivative work might > run afoul of. Again, I can fully understand that. The same point as above though applies - are they charging for the software or for the media and their costs? Surely also if someone does rebrand and sell and this breaks the terms of the package, then it the person who did the alteration who breaks the licence and not us. IANAL, but that's how it works in the UK. > If people aren't free to make a derivative work that > includes these ROM packages and sell that derivative work..then that > package has no place in Extras. And frankly its just not clear to me > that the one group posting provides enough legal cover. Let's put it > this way.. if they had just said "no commercial use" then the ROMS > would not be allowable. Instead they say something much more vague > that may or may not be interpreted as "no commercial use." The posting was made by one of the "senior" management at Amstrad who would have had to have had what he said cleared by a lawyer (I would imagine) The wording is certainly not cut and drive. AIUI 1. Anyone can use the ROMS and alter the ROMS 2. No-one can charge for the ROMS, but shareware is fine as long as no charge is made for the ROMS 3. You can't use them in anything embedded Now 1 is easy enough as is 3. 2 is the problem as it is a case of having to prove that no-charge is being made for the ROMS > > It does get a bit fuzzy in that if you're charging, as long as it's not for the ROMS, they're > > cool with it. > > The wording in the groups posting...is extremely vague here. Yep > Who > exactly gets to make the judgement as to whether the cost of a future > pressed ISO sent to you in the mail or a future binary download you > paid access for includes a value placed on the ROM packages or not? Amstrad I would imagine. > This sounds to me like its open to rather wide interpretation...and > that could very well mean a lawsuit if the copyrights change hands > again..or if the company management changes. If the copyright changes hands (unlikely as Amstrad are using the Spectrum ROMS in embedded technologies in the UK and making a fortune out of it!), then the packages would need reviewing, have the licence checked and anything else that could be expected. Amstrad is not like a normal company. Rather like Donald Trump's company, once you get past a certain point in the company, you never leave. Alan Sugar (head honcho of Amstrad) has had exactly the same management and legal team (to a person) for the past 18 years. > If i generously > interpret what that group posting said..sure it sounds okay..but > looking at it from the standpoint of potential legal problems. the one > phrase "in any sense, charging" is a big red flag to me. Okay, can one of the RH legal eagles check the legalities on this? The constant go/no-go is not much fun. We're trying to predict the future and every eventuality with nothing but conjecture and the insane legal mentality prevalent in the US. TTFN Paul -- "A lot of football success is in the mind. You must believe you are the best and then make sure that you are. In my time at Liverpool we always said we had the best two teams on Merseyside, Liverpool and Liverpool Reserves." - Bill Shankly From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk Thu Sep 1 22:14:43 2005 From: paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk (Paul F. Johnson) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:14:43 +0100 Subject: FUSE - Z80 ROM documentation In-Reply-To: References: <1125564287.16840.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125570035.31613.4.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <4316F90D.4080801@hhs.nl> <1125601631.20948.5.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <1125607014.2896.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125607916.7412.8.camel@localhost> <1125609264.7412.13.camel@localhost> <604aa79105090114483ec3ff5b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1125612884.7412.57.camel@localhost> Hi, > What we need is an unambiguous policy around shipping content. > > If that policy is: "don't ship content," then we're done. > > If that policy is: "explicit assignment to the public domain," then we > need a way to keep track of those assignments. > > If that policy is: "keep track of the various content licenses, like the > various docs licenses and the CC licenses, and like the CC:SA and so > forth," then we need to figure out which content licenses we support, and > which we don't. And that, folks, will take time. I personally think that this is quite important, not amazingly important, but important none-the-less as quite a number of packages now come with examples which can only be used with compiled binary but would count in the same way as the Spectrum ROMS. TTFN Paul -- "A lot of football success is in the mind. You must believe you are the best and then make sure that you are. In my time at Liverpool we always said we had the best two teams on Merseyside, Liverpool and Liverpool Reserves." - Bill Shankly From gdk at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 22:13:18 2005 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:13:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: FUSE - Z80 ROM documentation In-Reply-To: <1125612370.7412.50.camel@localhost> References: <1125564287.16840.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125570035.31613.4.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <4316F90D.4080801@hhs.nl> <1125601631.20948.5.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <1125607014.2896.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125607916.7412.8.camel@localhost> <1125609264.7412.13.camel@localhost> <604aa79105090114483ec3ff5b@mail.gmail.com> <1125612370.7412.50.camel@localhost> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Paul F. Johnson wrote: > Okay, can one of the RH legal eagles check the legalities on this? The > constant go/no-go is not much fun. We're trying to predict the future > and every eventuality with nothing but conjecture and the insane legal > mentality prevalent in the US. If I take this to a Red Hat lawyer, the answer will be no. Why? Because currently, Fedora exists under the auspices of Red Hat, and Red Hat has money, and people sue companies that have money, and so Red Hat is incredibly conservative about these kinds of ambiguities. One day, though, sometime in the coming months, there will exist a Fedora Foundation. That entity will be a non-profit with pretty much zero cash on hand, and therefore a very different threshhold for legal pain. In such an environment, "good faith" is a potentially more reasonable policy, and should we make a slip up, the only likely legal recourse is a simple cease and desist order. --g _____________________ ____________________________________________ Greg DeKoenigsberg ] [ the future masters of technology will have Community Relations ] [ to be lighthearted and intelligent. the Red Hat ] [ machine easily masters the grim and the ] [ dumb. --mcluhan From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk Thu Sep 1 22:21:01 2005 From: paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk (Paul F. Johnson) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:21:01 +0100 Subject: FUSE - Z80 ROM documentation In-Reply-To: References: <1125564287.16840.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125570035.31613.4.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <4316F90D.4080801@hhs.nl> <1125601631.20948.5.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <1125607014.2896.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125607916.7412.8.camel@localhost> <1125609264.7412.13.camel@localhost> <604aa79105090114483ec3ff5b@mail.gmail.com> <1125612370.7412.50.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <1125613261.7412.61.camel@localhost> Hi, On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 18:13 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Paul F. Johnson wrote: > > > Okay, can one of the RH legal eagles check the legalities on this? The > > constant go/no-go is not much fun. We're trying to predict the future > > and every eventuality with nothing but conjecture and the insane legal > > mentality prevalent in the US. > > If I take this to a Red Hat lawyer, the answer will be no. Why? Because > currently, Fedora exists under the auspices of Red Hat, and Red Hat has > money, and people sue companies that have money. So *that's* why SCO went after RH ;-p Seriously, I can see your point of view. If you can supply me with a specific set of questions I can put to Amstrad which will satisfy and get this fine piece of software into FCE, I'll happily do it. However, if, as you've said the foundation will appear, maybe it would be of more use to wait for that, include and see what happens. Suggestions? TTFN Paul -- "A lot of football success is in the mind. You must believe you are the best and then make sure that you are. In my time at Liverpool we always said we had the best two teams on Merseyside, Liverpool and Liverpool Reserves." - Bill Shankly From stickster at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 22:26:33 2005 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:26:33 -0400 Subject: FUSE - Z80 ROM documentation In-Reply-To: <1125612370.7412.50.camel@localhost> References: <1125564287.16840.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125570035.31613.4.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <4316F90D.4080801@hhs.nl> <1125601631.20948.5.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <1125607014.2896.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125607916.7412.8.camel@localhost> <1125609264.7412.13.camel@localhost> <604aa79105090114483ec3ff5b@mail.gmail.com> <1125612370.7412.50.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <1125613593.3054.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 23:06 +0100, Paul F. Johnson wrote: > Hi, > > > On 9/1/05, Paul F. Johnson wrote: > > > Eh? The ROMs are essential for all of the 8 bit machines and the wording > > > from Amstrad is that as long as you're not selling (which we're not), > > > then you have their blessing. > > > > That is absolutely not good enough. At some point in the future... > > there very well maybe be iso images of Extras that we as a project > > will be encouraging vendors to sell.. vendors like cheapbytes for > > example. > > Fair enough - I can understand that. The question is there though is > what is being charged for? If it is to cover the media, then there is no > charge being made for the software. If the cost to also cover cheapbytes > costs (for example), then again, the software is not being charged for. > > There is also precedent on this in that the emulator has been published > on the Linux Format July cover CD and DVD. The magazine is available > world wide. There was no charge made for the software. I'm reading opensource.org, the OSD, paragraph 1: "Free Redistribution - The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale." N.B. "...shall not restrict any party from selling...the software." > > Not only that but it has to be clear that such 3rd parties or > > any party who wants to make a fedora based distro can take anything > > from Extras, rebrand the collection of software and "sell" it via > > pressed media or binary downloads as is the case for all other > > projects in Extras. This isn't a self-serving community, we have to > > think hard about the potential infringement any derivative work might > > run afoul of. > > Again, I can fully understand that. The same point as above though > applies - are they charging for the software or for the media and their > costs? Surely also if someone does rebrand and sell and this breaks the > terms of the package, then it the person who did the alteration who > breaks the licence and not us. IANAL, but that's how it works in the UK. Fedora supports open source, which means Fedora does not discourage people from selling the software it produces. See above. Putting things in Fedora that prevent or discourage people from selling software is therefore the wrong thing to do. > > If people aren't free to make a derivative work that > > includes these ROM packages and sell that derivative work..then that > > package has no place in Extras. And frankly its just not clear to me > > that the one group posting provides enough legal cover. Let's put it > > this way.. if they had just said "no commercial use" then the ROMS > > would not be allowable. Instead they say something much more vague > > that may or may not be interpreted as "no commercial use." > > The posting was made by one of the "senior" management at Amstrad who > would have had to have had what he said cleared by a lawyer (I would > imagine) > > The wording is certainly not cut and drive. AIUI Did you mean "cut and dried"? > 1. Anyone can use the ROMS and alter the ROMS > 2. No-one can charge for the ROMS, but shareware is fine as long as no > charge is made for the ROMS > 3. You can't use them in anything embedded > > Now 1 is easy enough as is 3. 2 is the problem as it is a case of having > to prove that no-charge is being made for the ROMS I would say 2 and 3 are *both* problems. After all, the Linux kernel is used in embedded stuff. Once again, the OSD, paragraph 10: "License Must Be Technology-Neutral - No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface." There's no way the license granted by Amstrad can meet this requirement if they prohibit using their material in an embedded environment. > > > It does get a bit fuzzy in that if you're charging, as long as it's not for the ROMS, they're > > > cool with it. > > > > The wording in the groups posting...is extremely vague here. > > Yep Okay, let's err on the side of caution then, in addition to the side of open source software. > > Who > > exactly gets to make the judgement as to whether the cost of a future > > pressed ISO sent to you in the mail or a future binary download you > > paid access for includes a value placed on the ROM packages or not? > > Amstrad I would imagine. Whoa, big red flag! Let's not check our rights at the door, shall we? > > This sounds to me like its open to rather wide interpretation...and > > that could very well mean a lawsuit if the copyrights change hands > > again..or if the company management changes. > > If the copyright changes hands (unlikely as Amstrad are using the > Spectrum ROMS in embedded technologies in the UK and making a fortune > out of it!), then the packages would need reviewing, have the licence > checked and anything else that could be expected. Amstrad is not like a > normal company. Rather like Donald Trump's company, once you get past a > certain point in the company, you never leave. Alan Sugar (head honcho > of Amstrad) has had exactly the same management and legal team (to a > person) for the past 18 years. Calls like this aren't based on conjecture about what might happen in the future, they're based on current facts. Current facts all point to no ROMs in the distribution. > > If i generously > > interpret what that group posting said..sure it sounds okay..but > > looking at it from the standpoint of potential legal problems. the one > > phrase "in any sense, charging" is a big red flag to me. > > Okay, can one of the RH legal eagles check the legalities on this? The > constant go/no-go is not much fun. We're trying to predict the future > and every eventuality with nothing but conjecture and the insane legal > mentality prevalent in the US. The argument can be based purely on the OSD and the ROMs still fail the test. I don't see why we need to bug RH legal with this; it seems very clear to me. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From gdk at redhat.com Thu Sep 1 22:24:40 2005 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:24:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: FUSE - Z80 ROM documentation In-Reply-To: <1125613261.7412.61.camel@localhost> References: <1125564287.16840.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125570035.31613.4.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <4316F90D.4080801@hhs.nl> <1125601631.20948.5.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <1125607014.2896.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125607916.7412.8.camel@localhost> <1125609264.7412.13.camel@localhost> <604aa79105090114483ec3ff5b@mail.gmail.com> <1125612370.7412.50.camel@localhost> <1125613261.7412.61.camel@localhost> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Paul F. Johnson wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 18:13 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Paul F. Johnson wrote: > > > > > Okay, can one of the RH legal eagles check the legalities on this? The > > > constant go/no-go is not much fun. We're trying to predict the future > > > and every eventuality with nothing but conjecture and the insane legal > > > mentality prevalent in the US. > > > > If I take this to a Red Hat lawyer, the answer will be no. Why? Because > > currently, Fedora exists under the auspices of Red Hat, and Red Hat has > > money, and people sue companies that have money. > > So *that's* why SCO went after RH ;-p > > Seriously, I can see your point of view. If you can supply me with a > specific set of questions I can put to Amstrad which will satisfy and > get this fine piece of software into FCE, I'll happily do it. > > However, if, as you've said the foundation will appear, maybe it would > be of more use to wait for that, include and see what happens. > > Suggestions? My suggestion is to package the emulator now, and wait to package the ROMs for a couple of months. In the meantime, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to see if you can get Amstrad to place these ROMs into the public domain. --g _____________________ ____________________________________________ Greg DeKoenigsberg ] [ the future masters of technology will have Community Relations ] [ to be lighthearted and intelligent. the Red Hat ] [ machine easily masters the grim and the ] [ dumb. --mcluhan From nman64 at n-man.com Thu Sep 1 22:32:28 2005 From: nman64 at n-man.com (Patrick Barnes) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 17:32:28 -0500 Subject: FUSE - Z80 ROM documentation In-Reply-To: <1125612370.7412.50.camel@localhost> References: <1125564287.16840.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125570035.31613.4.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <4316F90D.4080801@hhs.nl> <1125601631.20948.5.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <1125607014.2896.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125607916.7412.8.camel@localhost> <1125609264.7412.13.camel@localhost> <604aa79105090114483ec3ff5b@mail.gmail.com> <1125612370.7412.50.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <4317817C.4090109@n-man.com> Paul F. Johnson wrote: >Hi, > > > >>On 9/1/05, Paul F. Johnson wrote: >> >> >>>Eh? The ROMs are essential for all of the 8 bit machines and the wording >>>from Amstrad is that as long as you're not selling (which we're not), >>>then you have their blessing. >>> >>> >>That is absolutely not good enough. At some point in the future... >>there very well maybe be iso images of Extras that we as a project >>will be encouraging vendors to sell.. vendors like cheapbytes for >>example. >> >> > >Fair enough - I can understand that. The question is there though is >what is being charged for? If it is to cover the media, then there is no >charge being made for the software. If the cost to also cover cheapbytes >costs (for example), then again, the software is not being charged for. > > > This is far too open to interpretation. We cannot take the risk. >There is also precedent on this in that the emulator has been published >on the Linux Format July cover CD and DVD. The magazine is available >world wide. There was no charge made for the software. > > > The emulator is no longer in question. The emulator can go into Extras. >>Not only that but it has to be clear that such 3rd parties or >>any party who wants to make a fedora based distro can take anything >>from Extras, rebrand the collection of software and "sell" it via >>pressed media or binary downloads as is the case for all other >>projects in Extras. This isn't a self-serving community, we have to >>think hard about the potential infringement any derivative work might >>run afoul of. >> >> > >Again, I can fully understand that. The same point as above though >applies - are they charging for the software or for the media and their >costs? Surely also if someone does rebrand and sell and this breaks the >terms of the package, then it the person who did the alteration who >breaks the licence and not us. IANAL, but that's how it works in the UK. > > > We aren't just watching our own backs. We want to be sure that others can repackage and redistribute the software. >>If people aren't free to make a derivative work that >>includes these ROM packages and sell that derivative work..then that >>package has no place in Extras. And frankly its just not clear to me >>that the one group posting provides enough legal cover. Let's put it >>this way.. if they had just said "no commercial use" then the ROMS >>would not be allowable. Instead they say something much more vague >>that may or may not be interpreted as "no commercial use." >> >> > >The posting was made by one of the "senior" management at Amstrad who >would have had to have had what he said cleared by a lawyer (I would >imagine) > > > We can't make assumptions. >The wording is certainly not cut and drive. AIUI > >1. Anyone can use the ROMS and alter the ROMS >2. No-one can charge for the ROMS, but shareware is fine as long as no >charge is made for the ROMS >3. You can't use them in anything embedded > >Now 1 is easy enough as is 3. 2 is the problem as it is a case of having >to prove that no-charge is being made for the ROMS > > > The post really doesn't clear anything for us. 2 is the biggest issue, and 3 is a lesser concern. We need something solid that allows unrestricted redistribution. We don't have it, and, quite frankly, as I look further into this, it casts greater doubts on the present licensing of the various ROMs. Amstrad doesn't hold copyrights or even redistribution licenses for much of the software, only the core ROMs necessary to emulate some Spectrum models. For most of the ROMs, you would have to get redistribution licenses directly from the current copyright holders. >>>It does get a bit fuzzy in that if you're charging, as long as it's not for the ROMS, they're >>>cool with it. >>> >>> >>The wording in the groups posting...is extremely vague here. >> >> > >Yep > > > >>Who >>exactly gets to make the judgement as to whether the cost of a future >>pressed ISO sent to you in the mail or a future binary download you >>paid access for includes a value placed on the ROM packages or not? >> >> > >Amstrad I would imagine. > > > The copyright holders might see things differently. >>This sounds to me like its open to rather wide interpretation...and >>that could very well mean a lawsuit if the copyrights change hands >>again..or if the company management changes. >> >> > >If the copyright changes hands (unlikely as Amstrad are using the >Spectrum ROMS in embedded technologies in the UK and making a fortune >out of it!), then the packages would need reviewing, have the licence >checked and anything else that could be expected. Amstrad is not like a >normal company. Rather like Donald Trump's company, once you get past a >certain point in the company, you never leave. Alan Sugar (head honcho >of Amstrad) has had exactly the same management and legal team (to a >person) for the past 18 years. > > > That's simply not good enough. >>If i generously >>interpret what that group posting said..sure it sounds okay..but >>looking at it from the standpoint of potential legal problems. the one >>phrase "in any sense, charging" is a big red flag to me. >> >> > >Okay, can one of the RH legal eagles check the legalities on this? The >constant go/no-go is not much fun. We're trying to predict the future >and every eventuality with nothing but conjecture and the insane legal >mentality prevalent in the US. > >TTFN > >Paul > > You're good to go on the emulator itself, but the ROM situation should probably be reviewed by Legal. -- Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes nman64 at n-man.com www.n-man.com -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From toshio at tiki-lounge.com Thu Sep 1 23:23:37 2005 From: toshio at tiki-lounge.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:23:37 -0700 Subject: foremost legality (GPL vs Public Domain) In-Reply-To: References: <1125453783.3266.31.camel@localhost> <4315188D.2030100@n-man.com> <1125458955.6949.2.camel@salem> <1125460550.2970.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1125617017.3266.159.camel@localhost> On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 09:18 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > This is a fork from the original code. > > The fork is licensed under the GPL. > > End of discussion. I think. The FSF seems to agree with you, Greg :-) For completeness, here's their response to my explanation of the situation with foremost: > The work as a whole is GPL. The public domain parts are still public > domain (on their own). > -- > -Dave "Novalis" Turner > GPL Compliance Engineer > Free Software Foundation -Toshio -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 00:02:32 2005 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom 'spot' Callaway) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 19:02:32 -0500 Subject: FUSE - Z80 ROM documentation In-Reply-To: References: <1125564287.16840.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125570035.31613.4.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <4316F90D.4080801@hhs.nl> <1125601631.20948.5.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <1125607014.2896.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125607916.7412.8.camel@localhost> <1125609264.7412.13.camel@localhost> <604aa79105090114483ec3ff5b@mail.gmail.com> <1125612370.7412.50.camel@localhost> <1125613261.7412.61.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <1125619353.10807.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 18:24 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > My suggestion is to package the emulator now, and wait to package the > ROMs for a couple of months. In the meantime, it probably wouldn't be a > bad idea to see if you can get Amstrad to place these ROMs into the public > domain. I doubt that they are likely to do this, as it would require them to essentially abandon copyright (IANAL). So, in looking at the posting, I'm asking myself, does it meet the requirements for content: Is it freely distributable: Yes. Amstrad are happy for emulator writers to include images of our copyrighted code as long as the (c)opyright messages are not altered and we appreciate it if the program/manual includes a note to the effect that "Amstrad have kindly given their permission for the redistribution of their copyrighted material but retain that copyright". Given the precedence of Linux Format including it with their magazine, I don't think anyone making FE cds will have any problem with this. The Amstrad concern is for "charging money for the emulator with ROMs", not "charging money for a CD of freely distributable packages". SO: To stop this wild goose of a discussion, Paul, please ask the Amstrad guys if they are OK with allowing Fedora Extras to include and distribute the ROMS, with the awareness that the ROMs will likely be included on CD collections of Fedora packages for sale. If they are ok, I'll approve the inclusion. If they are not ok with that, then its out. ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 00:39:03 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 20:39:03 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167376] New: Review Request: perl-DateTime Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167376 Summary: Review Request: perl-DateTime Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All URL: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-DateTime- 0.2901-1.src.rpm OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: gdk at redhat.com ReportedBy: steve at silug.org QAContact: dkl at redhat.com CC: fedora-extras-list at redhat.com Spec Name or Url: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-DateTime/perl-DateTime.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-DateTime-0.2901-1.src.rpm Description: The DateTime.pm module aims to provide a complete, correct, and easy to use date/time object implementation. Currently it handles many date calculations, date math (addition and subtraction), and provides convenient methods for retrieving portions of a date/time. This package is a bit odd. To avoid circular dependencies, I've bundled DateTime, DateTime::Locale, and DateTime::TimeZone. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 00:39:19 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 20:39:19 -0400 Subject: [Bug 163776] Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509020039.j820dJu1007207@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed Alias: FE-NEW https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=163776 steve at silug.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |167376 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 00:43:48 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 20:43:48 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167377] New: Review Request: perl-Class-Singleton Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167377 Summary: Review Request: perl-Class-Singleton Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All URL: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Class- Singleton-1.03-1.src.rpm OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: gdk at redhat.com ReportedBy: steve at silug.org QAContact: dkl at redhat.com CC: fedora-extras-list at redhat.com Spec Name or Url: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Class-Singleton/perl-Class-Singleton.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Class-Singleton-1.03-1.src.rpm Description: This is the Class::Singleton module. A Singleton describes an object class that can have only one instance in any system. An example of a Singleton might be a print spooler or system registry. This module implements a Singleton class from which other classes can be derived. By itself, the Class::Singleton module does very little other than manage the instantiation of a single object. In deriving a class from Class::Singleton, your module will inherit the Singleton instantiation method and can implement whatever specific functionality is required. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 00:44:00 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 20:44:00 -0400 Subject: [Bug 163776] Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509020044.j820i0JH007710@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed Alias: FE-NEW https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=163776 steve at silug.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |167377 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From rjames at csulb.edu Fri Sep 2 00:49:53 2005 From: rjames at csulb.edu (Ryan James) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 17:49:53 -0700 Subject: Using NetworkManager-vpnc Message-ID: <1125622193.2996.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> I'd like to be able to connect to my school's VPN using NetworkManager-vpnc, but I'm having some trouble. Basically they only supply a .pcf file (http://daf.csulb.edu/offices/ima/its/networkservices/vpn/profiles/1-BeachNet-Unix.pcf ) which includes the encrypted group password. The pcf as it is won't import into nm, but if you tweak it a bit (add a few config options) it will. The problem is that when I go to connect to it, it asks for the user and group passwords, but I do not have the group password as the school will only supply it encrypted. I've asked if I could get the unencrypted group pass but all they said was "use the pcf file supplied." Anyone got any ideas? From paul at cypherpunks.ca Fri Sep 2 01:14:35 2005 From: paul at cypherpunks.ca (Paul Wouters) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 03:14:35 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Using NetworkManager-vpnc In-Reply-To: <1125622193.2996.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1125622193.2996.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Ryan James wrote: > I'd like to be able to connect to my school's VPN using > NetworkManager-vpnc, but I'm having some trouble. Basically they only > supply a .pcf file > (http://daf.csulb.edu/offices/ima/its/networkservices/vpn/profiles/1-BeachNet-Unix.pcf ) which includes the encrypted group password. The pcf as it is won't import into nm, but if you tweak it a bit (add a few config options) it will. The problem is that when I go to connect to it, it asks for the user and group passwords, but I do not have the group password as the school will only supply it encrypted. I've asked if I could get the unencrypted group pass but all they said was "use the pcf file supplied." Anyone got any ideas? If you trace it using the linux cisco vpn client, you will see the memcpy() call showing you the decrypted (or rather de-obfuscated) password. Openswan (Linux ipsec client) comes with a contrib program called pcf2os.pl that can turn the rest of your pcf file into a valid openswan style ipsec.conf entry. Paul -- "With Data mining, we can search specifically for clues" --- The AIVD (The Dutch NSA) on the necessity of ISP's data retension From paul at cypherpunks.ca Fri Sep 2 01:17:18 2005 From: paul at cypherpunks.ca (Paul Wouters) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 03:17:18 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Using NetworkManager-vpnc In-Reply-To: <1125622193.2996.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1125622193.2996.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Ryan James wrote: > I'd like to be able to connect to my school's VPN using > NetworkManager-vpnc, but I'm having some trouble. Basically they only > supply a .pcf file > (http://daf.csulb.edu/offices/ima/its/networkservices/vpn/profiles/1-BeachNet-Unix.pcf ) which includes the encrypted group password. The pcf as it is won't import into nm, but if you tweak it a bit (add a few config options) it will. The problem is that when I go to connect to it, it asks for the user and group passwords, but I do not have the group password as the school will only supply it encrypted. I've asked if I could get the unencrypted group pass but all they said was "use the pcf file supplied." Anyone got any ideas? See also: http://femto.cs.uiuc.edu/~sbond/vpnc/ Paul -- "With Data mining, we can search specifically for clues" --- The AIVD (The Dutch NSA) on the necessity of ISP's data retension From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 01:55:09 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 21:55:09 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166023] Review Request: BibTool. Tool for manipulating BibTeX data bases In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509020155.j821t9Vj014537@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: BibTool. Tool for manipulating BibTeX data bases https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166023 ed at eh3.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| http://www.gerd- |http://www.gerd- |neugebauer.de/software/TeX/B|neugebauer.de/software/TeX/B |ibTool.en.html |ibTool.en.html Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|gdk at redhat.com |ed at eh3.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From ed at eh3.com 2005-09-01 21:54 EST ------- Hi Patrice, heres a quick review: small things easily fixed: - rpmlint reports: E: BibTool wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/BibTool-2.48/Perl/bibtool.pl "/usr/local/bin/perl" E: BibTool wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/BibTool-2.48/Tcl/bibtool.tcl "/usr/local/bin/tclsh" - specfile uses a mix of tabs and spaces good: - source matches upstream - naming is OK - license looks OK and is in %doc - builds in mock on FC-4 and runs without segfaults - specfile is very simple and legible - dir ownership is OK - code not content - no *.la or any shared libs - very simple and clean package While the two rpmlint warnings are annoying, I don't think that they're blockers. It would be nice if you (please!) created a patch so that the two rpmlint errors are fixed -- and thus the two examples would work automatically (someone could just copy them into their home dir and add execute permissions to use them). But, its something you can do after importing the package into CVS. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 02:42:39 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 22:42:39 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166087] Review Request: quarry - A multi-purpose board game GUI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509020242.j822gdsp019092@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: quarry - A multi-purpose board game GUI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166087 ------- Additional Comments From msalim at cs.indiana.edu 2005-09-01 22:42 EST ------- Dawid, want to be a reviewer for the package? Turns out the pre-Extras packaging I did for fedora.us makes me eligible for CVS access already, so technically this is not a first submission anymore. Thanks, - Michel -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From jpmahowald at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 02:56:56 2005 From: jpmahowald at gmail.com (John Mahowald) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 21:56:56 -0500 Subject: smeg, pyxdg, and numlockx not appearing in Bugzilla but in owners.list? Message-ID: <3ea99754050901195649bd4914@mail.gmail.com> I committed owners.list with my bugzilla entries, smeg, pyxdg, and numlockx, but they do not seem to be appearing in Bugzilla. I checked the Extras component list, not there. CVS HEAD of owners.list has my entries. Is there anything further to do to tell Bugzilla about these? Perhaps someone could check the syntax, or even better, write a script to do it. From ivazquez at ivazquez.net Fri Sep 2 03:11:24 2005 From: ivazquez at ivazquez.net (Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:11:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: smeg, pyxdg, and numlockx not appearing in Bugzilla but in owners.list? In-Reply-To: <3ea99754050901195649bd4914@mail.gmail.com> References: <3ea99754050901195649bd4914@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, John Mahowald wrote: > I committed owners.list with my bugzilla entries, smeg, pyxdg, and > numlockx, but they do not seem to be appearing in Bugzilla. I checked > the Extras component list, not there. > > CVS HEAD of owners.list has my entries. > > Is there anything further to do to tell Bugzilla about these? Perhaps > someone could check the syntax, or even better, write a script to do > it. Is "jpmahowald at gmail.com" your Bugzilla e-mail address? -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 04:56:06 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 00:56:06 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167381] New: Review request: perl-File-NCopy - Copy file, file Copy file[s] | dir[s], dir Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167381 Summary: Review request: perl-File-NCopy - Copy file, file Copy file[s] | dir[s], dir Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/File-NCopy/ OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: gdk at redhat.com ReportedBy: rc040203 at freenet.de QAContact: dkl at redhat.com CC: fedora-extras-list at redhat.com Spec Name or Url: ftp://packman.iu-bremen.de/fedora/SRPMS/perl-File-NCopy.spec SRPM Name or Url: ftp://packman.iu-bremen.de/fedora/SRPMS/perl-File-NCopy-0.34-1.src.rpm Description: File::NCopy copies files to directories, or a single file to another file. The functionality is very similar to cp. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 04:56:28 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 00:56:28 -0400 Subject: [Bug 163776] Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509020456.j824uS7B000561@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed Alias: FE-NEW https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=163776 rc040203 at freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |167381 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 04:59:22 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 00:59:22 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167364] Review Request: Fuse utilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509020459.j824xMjI001081@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Fuse utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167364 fedora at leemhuis.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora at leemhuis.info ------- Additional Comments From fedora at leemhuis.info 2005-09-02 00:59 EST ------- No review, just a note: FUSE (file System in userspace, fuse.sf.net) is currently heading for inclusion in the upstream kernel (at least they try very hard afaics). That FUSE also has a userland part that is named "utils" in the src-pgk -- so a resulting package for fedora-extras/core might be (you guessed it) fuse-utils. I think this fuse might be more popular in the future (or already is) than the emulator fuse. Therefore IMHO you should rename your pgk to fuseemu-utils oder fuse-spectrum-utils (or something like that) to avoid user confusion (even if there is no fuse-the-filesystem-pgk in Core/Extras yet). BTW: can't find anything below http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/emulators/* -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From i at stingr.net Fri Sep 2 06:25:34 2005 From: i at stingr.net (Paul P Komkoff Jr) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 10:25:34 +0400 Subject: How to package kernel module In-Reply-To: <1125607520.2896.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20050901203354.GX1559@stingr.net> <1125607520.2896.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20050902062534.GZ1559@stingr.net> Replying to Tom 'spot' Callaway: > On top of that, I'm very hesitant to include kernel-module-* packages on > principle. I feel strongly that most of the packages that we could > include (open source, not patent infringing) should be going upstream so > that they can get in the FC kernels. > > So, my first question is: Why aren't the zaptel kernel modules in the > upstream 2.6 tree? As Dave Jones said, the 1st major obstacle is code quality. If someone will send something like zaptel in its current shape to lkml, Cristoph Hellwig will kill him in a very very violent way. I believe that finally it will be in good shape, but "finally" is a good keyword for exception unrolling, but not for specifying time constraints. Asterisk is a hot topic right now. I, personally, trying to build some medium-sized applications with it, but some people might want to use it as their little in-house PBX (especially after switching all long-distance over to VoIP in north america). Audience is growing, and they are forced to use something like AstLinux or any another distro with precompiled/prepackaged stuff. Of course someone can manually build/install modules as needed, but this will effectively pollute the system and result in the same hassles as discussed by Dave below (stuff breaks after kernel upgrade). We can at least try to follow some policy, like "build kernel modules in advance for every kernel sitting in testing right now" and punch maintainers in the head if some module breaks in this situation. Second major obstacle is that zaptel kernel modules are under development, and I think it will be difficult to connect zaptel community with linux kernel community. The only thing came into my mind is to host -zaptel tree somewhere for some time, cook it in -mm, but after some time someone will decide to rip guts out of zaptel.c and all will break. Right now zaptel releases follow asterisk ones. Right now I can disable kernel module compilation and put enabled srpm somewhere on web. I physically cannot build modules for any available architecture. Any other stuff (zaptel userspace, libpri, and asterisk) will be available for review soon. -- Paul P 'Stingray' Komkoff Jr // http://stingr.net/key <- my pgp key This message represents the official view of the voices in my head From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 06:46:25 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 02:46:25 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167364] Review Request: Fuse emulator utilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509020646.j826kPgG016438@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Fuse emulator utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167364 paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: Fuse |Review Request: Fuse |utilities |emulator utilities ------- Additional Comments From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk 2005-09-02 02:46 EST ------- Sorry, yes, you're right about the name, it should be fuse-emulator-utils. I'll correct that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk Fri Sep 2 06:50:51 2005 From: paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk (Paul F. Johnson) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 07:50:51 +0100 Subject: FUSE - Z80 ROM documentation In-Reply-To: <1125619353.10807.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1125564287.16840.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125570035.31613.4.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <4316F90D.4080801@hhs.nl> <1125601631.20948.5.camel@speedy.iagorubio.net> <1125607014.2896.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1125607916.7412.8.camel@localhost> <1125609264.7412.13.camel@localhost> <604aa79105090114483ec3ff5b@mail.gmail.com> <1125612370.7412.50.camel@localhost> <1125613261.7412.61.camel@localhost> <1125619353.10807.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1125643851.7412.66.camel@localhost> Hi, > SO: To stop this wild goose of a discussion, Paul, please ask the > Amstrad guys if they are OK with allowing Fedora Extras to include and > distribute the ROMS, with the awareness that the ROMs will likely be > included on CD collections of Fedora packages for sale. Will do - I'll contact them today and see what they say. TTFN Paul -- "A lot of football success is in the mind. You must believe you are the best and then make sure that you are. In my time at Liverpool we always said we had the best two teams on Merseyside, Liverpool and Liverpool Reserves." - Bill Shankly From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 07:05:05 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 03:05:05 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166193] Review Request: perl-Class-DBI-Plugin-RetrieveAll : More complex retrieve_all() for Class::DBI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509020705.j82755rc019754@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Class-DBI-Plugin-RetrieveAll : More complex retrieve_all() for Class::DBI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166193 paul at city-fan.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2005-09-02 03:04 EST ------- Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 07:19:32 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 03:19:32 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167252] Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509020719.j827JWoK022490@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167252 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2005-09-02 03:19 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6 and #9) > Oh, and debug*.list are created by find-debuginfo.sh, which runs at end of > %install (ie. before %check). Shouldn't unpackaging the package into a subdir (%setup -n -c etc.) be a work around to this issue? (I haven't tried yet) (In reply to comment #8) > The most severe reasons for disabling Module::Signature checks is that the > checks may need a network connection to a keyserver for fetching the keys This should not affect perl-Text-WikiFormat, because it skips its signature check when Module::Signature is not installed. I.e. unless the rpm.spec BR: perl(Module::Signature), this should not affect the build system. Pulling in keys into a user keyring is not of much concern to me, because many programs also so. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 07:34:02 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 03:34:02 -0400 Subject: [Bug 165919] Review Request: pam_ssh Pluggable Authentication Module for ssh In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509020734.j827Y2mP025088@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pam_ssh Pluggable Authentication Module for ssh https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165919 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2005-09-02 03:33 EST ------- Done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 07:42:15 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 03:42:15 -0400 Subject: [Bug 165963] Review Request: libnet. Packet construction and injection library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509020742.j827gFpE026489@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libnet. Packet construction and injection library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165963 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2005-09-02 03:42 EST ------- Yes I agree. After searching a bit on the web it seems that there is a debian patch for dsniff and for snort the issue has been raised. I don't know other packages using libnet. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 07:52:04 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 03:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Bug 165963] Review Request: libnet. Packet construction and injection library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509020752.j827q4iu028059@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libnet. Packet construction and injection library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165963 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2005-09-02 03:51 EST ------- In fact there are many more but I think they should be taken up to date as all seem a bit unmaintained. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 07:53:04 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 03:53:04 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167260] Review Request: tomoe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509020753.j827r4xF028188@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tomoe https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167260 ------- Additional Comments From ryo-dairiki at users.sourceforge.net 2005-09-02 03:52 EST ------- Spec file and SRPM are updated. Spec: http://proxy.f2.ymdb.yahoofs.jp/users/d1e4801f/bc/tomoe/tomoe.spec?bcgArjDBPE5KZY5I Srpm: http://proxy.f2.ymdb.yahoofs.jp/users/d1e4801f/bc/tomoe/tomoe-0.2.1-2.src.rpm?bcgArjDBDdIdNULP -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 08:21:36 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 04:21:36 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166023] Review Request: BibTool. Tool for manipulating BibTeX data bases In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509020821.j828LakT001125@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: BibTool. Tool for manipulating BibTeX data bases https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166023 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2005-09-02 04:21 EST ------- I fixed those issues, imported and built. Thanks for the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 08:53:38 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 04:53:38 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166195] Review Request: perl-Class-DBI-SQLite : Extension to Class::DBI for sqlite In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509020853.j828rcY3006721@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Class-DBI-SQLite : Extension to Class::DBI for sqlite https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166195 paul at city-fan.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2005-09-02 04:53 EST ------- Explicit "Requires: perl(Class::DBI)" is no longer needed; can be fixed in CVS. Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From buildsys at fedoraproject.org Fri Sep 2 08:55:18 2005 From: buildsys at fedoraproject.org (buildsys at fedoraproject.org) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 04:55:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fedora Extras 3 Package Build Report Message-ID: <20050902085518.307578030@extras64.linux.duke.edu> Packages built and released for Fedora Extras 3: 11 BibTool-2.48-3.fc3 pam_ssh-1.91-8.1.fc3 pam_ssh-1.91-9.fc3 perl-Carp-Assert-More-1.10-1.fc3 perl-Class-DBI-Plugin-Type-0.02-3.fc3 perl-HTML-Scrubber-0.08-2.fc3 perl-Module-Versions-Report-1.02-2.fc3 perl-Text-WikiFormat-0.76-2.fc3 scim-hangul-0.2.0-5.fc3.1 scim-hangul-0.2.0-5.fc3.2 unison-2.13.16-1.fc3 For more information about the built packages please see the repository or the fedora Info Feed: http://fedoraproject.org/infofeed/ From buildsys at fedoraproject.org Fri Sep 2 08:55:29 2005 From: buildsys at fedoraproject.org (buildsys at fedoraproject.org) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 04:55:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fedora Extras development Package Build Report Message-ID: <20050902085529.C37C18030@extras64.linux.duke.edu> Packages built and released for Fedora Extras development: 11 BibTool-2.48-3.fc5 lirc-0.7.2-3.fc5 pam_ssh-1.91-8.1.fc5 pam_ssh-1.91-9.fc5 perl-Carp-Assert-More-1.10-1.fc5 perl-Class-DBI-Plugin-Type-0.02-3.fc5 perl-HTML-Scrubber-0.08-2.fc5 perl-Module-Versions-Report-1.02-2.fc5 perl-Text-WikiFormat-0.76-2.fc5 supertux-0.1.3-1.fc5 unison-2.13.16-1.fc5 For more information about the built packages please see the repository or the fedora Info Feed: http://fedoraproject.org/infofeed/ From buildsys at fedoraproject.org Fri Sep 2 08:55:25 2005 From: buildsys at fedoraproject.org (buildsys at fedoraproject.org) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 04:55:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fedora Extras 4 Package Build Report Message-ID: <20050902085525.B72528031@extras64.linux.duke.edu> Packages built and released for Fedora Extras 4: 11 BibTool-2.48-3.fc4 lirc-0.7.2-1.1.fc4 pam_ssh-1.91-9.fc4 perl-Carp-Assert-More-1.10-1.fc4 perl-Class-DBI-Plugin-Type-0.02-3.fc4 perl-HTML-Scrubber-0.08-2.fc4 perl-Module-Versions-Report-1.02-2.fc4 perl-Text-WikiFormat-0.76-2.fc4 scim-hangul-0.2.0-5.fc4.2 supertux-0.1.3-1.fc4 unison-2.13.16-1.fc4 For more information about the built packages please see the repository or the fedora Info Feed: http://fedoraproject.org/infofeed/ From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 09:22:31 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 05:22:31 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167258] Review Request: up-imapproxy: University of Pennsylvania IMAP Proxy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509020922.j829MVEj011958@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: up-imapproxy: University of Pennsylvania IMAP Proxy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167258 ------- Additional Comments From selsky at columbia.edu 2005-09-02 05:22 EST ------- Just FYI, UP = University of Pittsburgh, not University of Pennsylvania. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 09:40:03 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 05:40:03 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166195] Review Request: perl-Class-DBI-SQLite : Extension to Class::DBI for sqlite In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509020940.j829e3Wm013867@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Class-DBI-SQLite : Extension to Class::DBI for sqlite https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166195 ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2005-09-02 05:40 EST ------- I think that this is probably needed: Requires: perl(DBD::SQLite) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 10:00:24 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 06:00:24 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166196] Review Request: perl-Class-DBI-mysql : Extensions to Class::DBI for MySQL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509021000.j82A0ObH016146@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Class-DBI-mysql : Extensions to Class::DBI for MySQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166196 paul at city-fan.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|gdk at redhat.com |paul at city-fan.org OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2005-09-02 06:00 EST ------- Review: - rpmlint clean - package and spec file naming OK - package meets guidelines - license is same as perl, matches spec - spec written in English and is legible - source matches upstream - package builds OK in mock on FC4 (i386) - BR's mostly OK - no locales, libraries, subpackages or pkgconfigs to worry about - not relocatable - no directory ownership or permissions issues - no duplicate files - %clean section present and correct - macro usage is consistent - code, not content - no large docs - docs don't affect runtime - no scriptlets Needswork: - redundant BR: perl - license text not included - BR: perl(DBD::mysql) needed; I suspect that this may also be needed as a manual Requires:, as might perl(DBD::SQLite) for the SQLite equivalent of this module, but I don't know enough to confirm this Suggestions: - the module tries to use Time::Piece::MySQL if it's available; since this module is available in Extras, it might be useful to include this as a manual dependency - use %{?_smp_mflags} -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 10:05:26 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 06:05:26 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167252] Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509021005.j82A5QxM017026@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167252 ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2005-09-02 06:05 EST ------- Why just not move the test suite back into the %build section? ... %build %{__perl} Build.PL installdirs=vendor ./Build +./Build test ... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 10:24:56 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 06:24:56 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166191] Review Request: perl-Class-DBI-Pg : Class::DBI extension for PostgreSQL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509021024.j82AOuj5018951@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Class-DBI-Pg : Class::DBI extension for PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166191 paul at city-fan.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|gdk at redhat.com |paul at city-fan.org OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2005-09-02 06:24 EST ------- Review: - rpmlint clean - package and spec names OK - package meets guidelines - license is same as perl, matches spec - spec written in English and is legible - sources match upstream - package builds OK in mock for FC4 (i386) - BR's mostly OK - no locales, libraries, subpackages or pkgconfigs to worry about - not relocatable - no directory ownership or permissions issues - no duplicate files - %clean section present and correct - macro usage is consistent - code, not content - no large docs - docs don't affect runtime - no scriptlets Needswork: - redundant BR: perl - include license text - add perl(DBD::Pg) BR and probably dep too Suggestions: - honor %{?_smp_mflags} -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 10:31:02 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 06:31:02 -0400 Subject: [Bug 165963] Review Request: libnet. Packet construction and injection library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509021031.j82AV2WZ019690@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libnet. Packet construction and injection library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165963 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2005-09-02 06:30 EST ------- As a buildreq, both package versions can still be used, so libnet10 would still be available (if needed). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From veillard at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 10:35:23 2005 From: veillard at redhat.com (Daniel Veillard) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 06:35:23 -0400 Subject: Orphan packages In-Reply-To: <1125592672.16604.21.camel@weasel.turre.laiskiainen.org> References: <1125592672.16604.21.camel@weasel.turre.laiskiainen.org> Message-ID: <20050902103523.GS10185@redhat.com> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 07:37:52PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: > wbxml2 from the .spec found on-line wbxml2 is a library that includes a WBXML parser and a WBXML compiler. Unlike wbxml, it does not depend on libxml2 but on expat, making it faster and more portable. Ben voyons ! Just Kill It ! Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Desktop team http://redhat.com/ veillard at redhat.com | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 12:35:27 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 08:35:27 -0400 Subject: [Bug 165906] Review Request: perl-Test-WWW-Mechanize - Testing-specific WWW::Mechanize subclass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509021235.j82CZRnD001098@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-WWW-Mechanize - Testing-specific WWW::Mechanize subclass https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165906 Bug 165906 depends on bug 165904, which changed state. Bug 165904 Summary: Review Request: perl-Carp-Assert-More - Convenience wrappers around Carp::Assert https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165904 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 12:58:36 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 08:58:36 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167381] Review request: perl-File-NCopy - Copy file, file Copy file[s] | dir[s], dir In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509021258.j82CwaQU004387@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review request: perl-File-NCopy - Copy file, file Copy file[s] | dir[s], dir https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167381 paul at city-fan.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|gdk at redhat.com |paul at city-fan.org OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2005-09-02 08:58 EST ------- Review: - rpmlint clean - package and spec file name OK - package meets guidelines - license is same as perl, matches upstream - spec file written in English and is legible - sources match upstream - builds OK in mock on FC4 (i386) - BRs OK - no locales, libraries, subpackages or pkgconfigs to worry about - not relocatable - no directory ownership or permissions problems - no duplicate files - %clean section present and correct - code, not content - no large docs - docs don't affect runtime - no scriptlets Needswork: - URL for Source0 is 404-compliant - license text not included Suggestions: - Summary could be clearer I think; how about: Copy files to directories, or a single file to another file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From pmatilai at laiskiainen.org Fri Sep 2 13:07:49 2005 From: pmatilai at laiskiainen.org (Panu Matilainen) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 06:07:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Orphan packages In-Reply-To: <20050902103523.GS10185@redhat.com> References: <1125592672.16604.21.camel@weasel.turre.laiskiainen.org> <20050902103523.GS10185@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Daniel Veillard wrote: > On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 07:37:52PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: >> wbxml2 > > from the .spec found on-line > > wbxml2 is a library that includes a WBXML parser and a WBXML compiler. > Unlike wbxml, it does not depend on libxml2 but on expat, making it > faster and more portable. > > Ben voyons ! > Just Kill It ! It's an (optional) build dependency of multisync: without it some mobile phones wont work with multisync. That's the reason it's there at all, dunno about any other qualities or lack of thereof :) - Panu - From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 13:17:19 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:17:19 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167405] New: Review Request: perl-Hook-LexWrap - Lexically scoped subroutine wrappers Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167405 Summary: Review Request: perl-Hook-LexWrap - Lexically scoped subroutine wrappers Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All URL: http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-Hook- LexWrap-0.20-1.src.rpm OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: gdk at redhat.com ReportedBy: jpo at di.uminho.pt QAContact: dkl at redhat.com CC: fedora-extras-list at redhat.com Spec Name or Url: http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-Hook-LexWrap.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-Hook-LexWrap-0.20-1.src.rpm Description: Hook::LexWrap allows you to install a pre- or post-wrapper (or both) around an existing subroutine. Unlike other modules that provide this capacity (e.g. Hook::PreAndPost and Hook::WrapSub), Hook::LexWrap implements wrappers in such a way that the standard `caller' function works correctly within the wrapped subroutine. Note: This package is an RT 3.4 requirement -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 13:17:36 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:17:36 -0400 Subject: [Bug 163776] Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509021317.j82DHabs007361@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed Alias: FE-NEW https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=163776 jpo at di.uminho.pt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |167405 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 13:18:33 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:18:33 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167258] Review Request: up-imapproxy: University of Pittsburgh IMAP Proxy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509021318.j82DIXCZ007486@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: up-imapproxy: University of Pittsburgh IMAP Proxy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167258 jeff at ultimateevil.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: up- |Review Request: up- |imapproxy: University of |imapproxy: University of |Pennsylvania IMAP Proxy |Pittsburgh IMAP Proxy ------- Additional Comments From jeff at ultimateevil.org 2005-09-02 09:18 EST ------- Although I didn't actually apply Paul's patch directly, I believe I addressed all the suggestions he made. So here's a new SRPM and spec. http://www.ultimateevil.org/~jeff/Fedora/up-imapproxy-1.2.3-4.src.rpm http://www.ultimateevil.org/~jeff/Fedora/up-imapproxy.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 13:19:49 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:19:49 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167406] New: Review Request: perl-Locale-Maketext-Fuzzy - Maketext from already interpolated strings Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167406 Summary: Review Request: perl-Locale-Maketext-Fuzzy - Maketext from already interpolated strings Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All URL: http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-Locale- Maketext-Fuzzy-0.02-1.src.rpm OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: gdk at redhat.com ReportedBy: jpo at di.uminho.pt QAContact: dkl at redhat.com CC: fedora-extras-list at redhat.com Spec Name or Url: http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-Locale-Maketext-Fuzzy.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-Locale-Maketext-Fuzzy-0.02-1.src.rpm Description: This module is a subclass of Locale::Maketext, with additional support for localizing messages that already contains interpolated variables. This is most useful when the messages are returned by external modules -- for example, to match "dir: command not foundr" against "[_1]: command not found". Note: This package is an RT 3.4 requirement -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 13:20:06 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:20:06 -0400 Subject: [Bug 163776] Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509021320.j82DK60q007753@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed Alias: FE-NEW https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=163776 jpo at di.uminho.pt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |167406 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 13:20:24 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:20:24 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167381] Review request: perl-File-NCopy - Copy file, file Copy file[s] | dir[s], dir In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509021320.j82DKOg0007829@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review request: perl-File-NCopy - Copy file, file Copy file[s] | dir[s], dir https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167381 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2005-09-02 09:20 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > - URL for Source0 is 404-compliant What kind of superfluous kind of convention are you trying to invent now? > - Summary could be clearer I think; how about: > Copy files to directories, or a single file to another file This is the original dist description from http://search.cpan.org/dist/File-NCopy -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 13:24:29 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:24:29 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167381] Review request: perl-File-NCopy - Copy file, file Copy file[s] | dir[s], dir In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509021324.j82DOTdQ008797@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review request: perl-File-NCopy - Copy file, file Copy file[s] | dir[s], dir https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167381 ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2005-09-02 09:24 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #1) > > > - URL for Source0 is 404-compliant > What kind of superfluous kind of convention are you trying to invent now? This one: $ spectool --gf perl-File-NCopy.spec --13:44:12-- http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/File/File-NCopy-0.34.tar.gz => `./File-NCopy-0.34.tar.gz' Resolving www.cpan.org... 66.39.76.93 Connecting to www.cpan.org[66.39.76.93]:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found 13:44:12 ERROR 404: Not Found. > > - Summary could be clearer I think; how about: > > Copy files to directories, or a single file to another file > This is the original dist description from > http://search.cpan.org/dist/File-NCopy I know it is. That doesn't make it a clear description of what the package is for. I believe my suggestion is much clearer, but it's only a suggestion; feel free to use the original text if you prefer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 13:33:44 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:33:44 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167381] Review request: perl-File-NCopy - Copy file, file Copy file[s] | dir[s], dir In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509021333.j82DXipj010236@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review request: perl-File-NCopy - Copy file, file Copy file[s] | dir[s], dir https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167381 ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2005-09-02 09:33 EST ------- This link works http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/M/MZ/MZSANFORD/File-NCopy-0.34.tar.gz It appears to be a missing or a broken symbolic link. The tarballs in CPAN are all located under the authors directory tree. All others references (e.g. from the modules directory) are symbolic links. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 13:45:57 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:45:57 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167405] Review Request: perl-Hook-LexWrap - Lexically scoped subroutine wrappers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509021345.j82Djv4Q012359@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Hook-LexWrap - Lexically scoped subroutine wrappers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167405 rc040203 at freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|gdk at redhat.com |rc040203 at freenet.de OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2005-09-02 09:45 EST ------- APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 13:49:02 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:49:02 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166515] Review Request: pbzip2 : parallel version of bzip2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509021349.j82Dn2fp013025@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pbzip2 : parallel version of bzip2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166515 ------- Additional Comments From jeff.gilchrist at gmail.com 2005-09-02 09:48 EST ------- Does that mean its going to be accepted? If yes, then I will need CVS access to submit the software. I have already completed the legal papers and my CVS user id is: jeffg Thanks, Jeff. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 13:52:30 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:52:30 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167381] Review request: perl-File-NCopy - Copy file, file Copy file[s] | dir[s], dir In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509021352.j82DqUcm013763@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review request: perl-File-NCopy - Copy file, file Copy file[s] | dir[s], dir https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167381 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2005-09-02 09:52 EST ------- Updates to appear soon at: ftp://packman.iu-bremen.de/fedora/SRPMS/perl-File-NCopy.spec ftp://packman.iu-bremen.de/fedora/SRPMS/perl-File-NCopy-0.34-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 13:56:29 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:56:29 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167405] Review Request: perl-Hook-LexWrap - Lexically scoped subroutine wrappers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509021356.j82DuTUI014926@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Hook-LexWrap - Lexically scoped subroutine wrappers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167405 ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2005-09-02 09:56 EST ------- Package still has redundant BR: perl and does not include text of either GPL or Artistic license. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 13:58:12 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:58:12 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167406] Review Request: perl-Locale-Maketext-Fuzzy - Maketext from already interpolated strings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509021358.j82DwC3t015308@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Locale-Maketext-Fuzzy - Maketext from already interpolated strings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167406 rc040203 at freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|gdk at redhat.com |rc040203 at freenet.de OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2005-09-02 09:57 EST ------- APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 14:56:50 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 10:56:50 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167381] Review request: perl-File-NCopy - Copy file, file Copy file[s] | dir[s], dir In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509021456.j82Euo8b025219@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review request: perl-File-NCopy - Copy file, file Copy file[s] | dir[s], dir https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167381 ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2005-09-02 10:56 EST ------- License text still missing, no changelog entry. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 16:04:23 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 12:04:23 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166207] Review Request: rekall : A KDE database front-end application In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509021604.j82G4NIJ005734@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rekall : A KDE database front-end application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166207 gauret at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gauret at free.fr OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From gauret at free.fr 2005-09-02 12:04 EST ------- * BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils is missing * rpmlint says: zero-length /usr/share/apps/rekall/stock/component/py/dummy. Maybe it's justified, since it's a dummy file * rpmlint of rekall-runtime says: library-without-ldconfig (missing ldconfig in post and postun for this subpackage), devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/librek{all,base}rt.so. Maybe it's not necessary to make a rekall-runtime-devel subpackage, but in this case please have rekall-runtime provide it. * Typo in rekall-runtime %description: s/design functions or removed/design functions are removed/g * --vendor in desktop files should be fedora, not kde * in the desktop file: missing "Application" category. I would also add the "Office" category. * when creating a new database with the xbase driver, I get the message : ? xbase: cannot load driver. Library files for "libkbase_driver_xbase.la" not found in paths. ?. Same thing for mysql driver and pgsql. It looks like rekall needs those *.la files. * rekall apparently uses .rlk files. It could be useful to associate those files with rekall, using a mime entry in the desktop file (--add-mime-type switch) and running update-desktop-database in %post. * the desktop entry does not have an icon. Symlinking %{_datadir}/apps/rekall/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/rekall.png to %{_datadir}/pixmaps should do the trick. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 16:46:05 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 12:46:05 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167258] Review Request: up-imapproxy: University of Pittsburgh IMAP Proxy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509021646.j82Gk5RB013239@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: up-imapproxy: University of Pittsburgh IMAP Proxy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167258 ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2005-09-02 12:45 EST ------- I think this package should be reviewed by someone that actively uses IMAP, which rules out me... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 16:58:49 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 12:58:49 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166542] Review Request: mod_auth_pam: PAM authentication module for Apache In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509021658.j82Gwnpw015753@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mod_auth_pam: PAM authentication module for Apache https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166542 gauret at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gauret at free.fr OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From gauret at free.fr 2005-09-02 12:58 EST ------- * Please use "install -p" to preserve timestamps * Change the Requires line to: Requires: httpd-mmn = %(cat %{_includedir}/httpd/.mmn || echo missing-httpd-devel) as in the PHP package, it causes an error in mock. * If you want, you can use a dist tag. * Is the License tag correct ? I know you have included the full text of the license, but maybe the License tag should be "Distributable", (which is what we use when we mean "look at the LICENSE file") * please prefix the additional sources with mod_auth_pam- for those who have a common SOURCES dir (as in the default rpm setup). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From gauret at free.fr Fri Sep 2 17:01:18 2005 From: gauret at free.fr (Aurelien Bompard) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 19:01:18 +0200 Subject: Assign rights in Bugzilla Message-ID: Hi, In the PackageReviewGuidelines is written that I should assign the bug to myself when I review a package. But it looks like I don't have the rights to do that, even though I'm a member of the fedorabugs group on admin.fedora.redhat.com Is an additional step required ? Thanks Aur?lien -- http://aurelien.bompard.org ~~~~ Jabber : abompard at jabber.fr "Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect." -- Linus Torvalds From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 17:10:24 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 13:10:24 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167258] Review Request: up-imapproxy: University of Pittsburgh IMAP Proxy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509021710.j82HAOtv017700@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: up-imapproxy: University of Pittsburgh IMAP Proxy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167258 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2005-09-02 13:10 EST ------- In the specfile, when using the 'install' command, I'd suggest using the -p option to preserve time stamps. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 17:24:26 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 13:24:26 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167252] Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509021724.j82HOQYn019980@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167252 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2005-09-02 13:24 EST ------- Regarding importing the keys: any build that alters the system outside of the build dirs is IMO simply unacceptable. Regarding Module::Signature installed or not: that adds uncertainty to the build, which conflicts with the goal of consistent, reproducible builds both in the build system and developer/end user boxes. It's easily circumvented by adding a BuildConflicts on Module::Signature or disabling the signature test. BuildRequiring Module::Signature doesn't make much sense because there are too many other, external factors (which aren't expressible in a specfile) that affect whether the signature check will succeed or not. If you want to move the test suite, moving it to the end of %install section would also be possible (and IMO better than %build, but even better would be to just disable the signature test and be done with it). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From dkl at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 05:20:31 2005 From: dkl at redhat.com (Dave Lawrence) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:20:31 -0400 Subject: Assign rights in Bugzilla In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4317E11F.30309@redhat.com> Aurelien Bompard wrote: >Hi, > >In the PackageReviewGuidelines is written that I should assign the bug to >myself when I review a package. >But it looks like I don't have the rights to do that, even though I'm a >member of the fedorabugs group on admin.fedora.redhat.com > >Is an additional step required ? > >Thanks > >Aur?lien > > For some reason you were not in the fedora_contrib group. I have added you to that now. Dave -- ------------------------------- David Lawrence Red Hat Quality Assurance ------------------------------- www.redhat.com ftp.redhat.com From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 18:12:36 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 14:12:36 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166087] Review Request: quarry - A multi-purpose board game GUI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509021812.j82ICaNv030217@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: quarry - A multi-purpose board game GUI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166087 ------- Additional Comments From gajownik at gmail.com 2005-09-02 14:12 EST ------- (In reply to comment #12) > Dawid, want to be a reviewer for the package? Yes, I would like to. I requested today membership in the fedorabugs group but I'm not shure when I'll get the reply. I would appreciate it if someone could review this package in the meantime. I don't want to be a bottleneck :D > so technically this is not a first submission anymore. So you have a sponsor already? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Fri Sep 2 18:21:46 2005 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 20:21:46 +0200 Subject: Assign rights in Bugzilla In-Reply-To: <4317E11F.30309@redhat.com> References: <4317E11F.30309@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4318983A.6070205@hhs.nl> Dave Lawrence wrote: > Aurelien Bompard wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> In the PackageReviewGuidelines is written that I should assign the bug to >> myself when I review a package. >> But it looks like I don't have the rights to do that, even though I'm a >> member of the fedorabugs group on admin.fedora.redhat.com >> >> Is an additional step required ? >> >> Thanks >> >> Aur?lien >> >> > > For some reason you were not in the fedora_contrib group. I have added > you to that now. > > Dave > I've had the same issue when reviewing sofar I've solved it by asking the bug submitter to reasign to me, can you check / add me to the fedora_contrib group too? (same email as this mail is coming from) Regards, Hans From dkl at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 06:28:45 2005 From: dkl at redhat.com (Dave Lawrence) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 02:28:45 -0400 Subject: Assign rights in Bugzilla In-Reply-To: <4318983A.6070205@hhs.nl> References: <4317E11F.30309@redhat.com> <4318983A.6070205@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <4317F11D.9000309@redhat.com> Hans de Goede wrote: > > > Dave Lawrence wrote: > >> Aurelien Bompard wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> In the PackageReviewGuidelines is written that I should assign the >>> bug to >>> myself when I review a package. >>> But it looks like I don't have the rights to do that, even though I'm a >>> member of the fedorabugs group on admin.fedora.redhat.com >>> >>> Is an additional step required ? >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Aur?lien >>> >>> >> >> For some reason you were not in the fedora_contrib group. I have >> added you to that now. >> >> Dave >> > > I've had the same issue when reviewing sofar I've solved it by asking > the bug submitter to reasign to me, can you check / add me to the > fedora_contrib group too? (same email as this mail is coming from) > > Regards, > > Hans Updated. Dave -- ------------------------------- David Lawrence Red Hat Quality Assurance ------------------------------- www.redhat.com ftp.redhat.com From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 18:48:40 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 14:48:40 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166087] Review Request: quarry - A multi-purpose board game GUI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509021848.j82ImelY002034@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: quarry - A multi-purpose board game GUI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166087 ------- Additional Comments From dkl at redhat.com 2005-09-02 14:48 EST ------- (In reply to comment #13) > Yes, I would like to. I requested today membership in the fedorabugs group but > I'm not shure when I'll get the reply. > Dawid, you should now be able to reassign review bugs. Dave -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 19:26:43 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 15:26:43 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166087] Review Request: quarry - A multi-purpose board game GUI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509021926.j82JQhUu007961@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: quarry - A multi-purpose board game GUI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166087 gajownik at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|gdk at redhat.com |gajownik at gmail.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From gajownik at gmail.com 2005-09-02 15:26 EST ------- > Dawid, you should now be able to reassign review bugs. Thanks! Here's my review: * no rpmlint warnings * license is GPL * source matches upstream * uses find_lang macro ;-) * scriptlets look OK Approved :D -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 19:52:53 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 15:52:53 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166426] Review Request: grhino - Othello/Reversi game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509021952.j82JqraA012304@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: grhino - Othello/Reversi game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166426 gauret at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|gdk at redhat.com |gauret at free.fr OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From gauret at free.fr 2005-09-02 15:52 EST ------- Missing BuildRequires: libgnomeui-devel Apart from that, it looks good. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From buildsys at fedoraproject.org Fri Sep 2 20:53:36 2005 From: buildsys at fedoraproject.org (buildsys at fedoraproject.org) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 16:53:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fedora Extras 3 Package Build Report Message-ID: <20050902205336.422268031@extras64.linux.duke.edu> Packages built and released for Fedora Extras 3: 2 lyx-1.3.6-4.fc3 supertux-0.1.3-1.fc3 For more information about the built packages please see the repository or the fedora Info Feed: http://fedoraproject.org/infofeed/ From buildsys at fedoraproject.org Fri Sep 2 20:53:45 2005 From: buildsys at fedoraproject.org (buildsys at fedoraproject.org) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 16:53:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fedora Extras 4 Package Build Report Message-ID: <20050902205345.4CE648032@extras64.linux.duke.edu> Packages built and released for Fedora Extras 4: 3 freeciv-2.0.5-2.fc4 libcddb-1.2.1-1.fc4 lyx-1.3.6-4.fc4 For more information about the built packages please see the repository or the fedora Info Feed: http://fedoraproject.org/infofeed/ From buildsys at fedoraproject.org Fri Sep 2 20:53:55 2005 From: buildsys at fedoraproject.org (buildsys at fedoraproject.org) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 16:53:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fedora Extras development Package Build Report Message-ID: <20050902205355.626508030@extras64.linux.duke.edu> Packages built and released for Fedora Extras development: 4 freeciv-2.0.5-3.fc5 glibmm24-2.6.1-2 inkscape-0.42.2-1.fc5 lighttpd-1.4.3-1.fc5 For more information about the built packages please see the repository or the fedora Info Feed: http://fedoraproject.org/infofeed/ From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 21:52:53 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 17:52:53 -0400 Subject: [Bug 165963] Review Request: libnet. Packet construction and injection library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509022152.j82LqrQ3028658@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libnet. Packet construction and injection library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165963 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2005-09-02 17:52 EST ------- Yes, just go on and build a new version of libnet10, afterwards I'll commit this version. Maybe I could add something like that in the %changelog: - this libnet package updates libnet10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 21:57:10 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 17:57:10 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167354] Review Request: amavisd-new In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509022157.j82LvAQQ029319@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: amavisd-new https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167354 ------- Additional Comments From steve at silug.org 2005-09-02 17:57 EST ------- I need to bump the perl(Compress::Zlib) requirement to >= 1.35, or remove the check from the code so we can use it on FC-[34] without an update to perl-Compress-Zlib. *sigh* -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 22:45:16 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 18:45:16 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166426] Review Request: grhino - Othello/Reversi game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509022245.j82MjGCY000574@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: grhino - Othello/Reversi game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166426 ------- Additional Comments From msalim at cs.indiana.edu 2005-09-02 18:45 EST ------- http://hircus.org/fedora/grhino/grhino.spec http://hircus.org/fedora/grhino/grhino-0.15.0-2.fc4.src.rpm - BuildRequires on libgnomeui-devel instead of libgnome-devel; the former requires on the latter - Updated description to mention that GRhino is GTP-compliant Thanks for the review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 23:10:30 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 19:10:30 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166960] Review Request: Fuse (and associated libraries) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509022310.j82NAU3O002142@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Fuse (and associated libraries) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166960 ------- Additional Comments From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk 2005-09-02 19:10 EST ------- I've uploaded a new spec file which packages without the ROMS. http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/emulation/downloads/fuse-0.7.0-noroms.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk Fri Sep 2 23:14:36 2005 From: paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk (Paul) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 00:14:36 +0100 Subject: Bug 166960 : Review Request: Fuse (and associated libraries) Message-ID: <1125702876.9172.2.camel@localhost> Hi, I've uploaded a new spec file which packages without the ROMS - can someone please now review it, the associated libs and fuse-emulator tools so this can progress? The problem though is that while the RPM is correctly packaged without the ROMS, the srpm has them in. Is this because the RPM is built from the tarball in rpmbuild/SOURCES and the srpm from the website? TTFN Paul -- "A lot of football success is in the mind. You must believe you are the best and then make sure that you are. In my time at Liverpool we always said we had the best two teams on Merseyside, Liverpool and Liverpool Reserves." - Bill Shankly -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 2 23:30:09 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 19:30:09 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166960] Review Request: Fuse (and associated libraries) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509022330.j82NU9lv003653@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Fuse (and associated libraries) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166960 ------- Additional Comments From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk 2005-09-02 19:30 EST ------- srpm now uploaded http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/emulation/downloads/fuse-0.7.0-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk Fri Sep 2 23:31:23 2005 From: paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk (Paul F. Johnson) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 00:31:23 +0100 Subject: Bug 166960 : Review Request: Fuse (and associated libraries) In-Reply-To: <1125702876.9172.2.camel@localhost> References: <1125702876.9172.2.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <1125703884.9172.7.camel@localhost> Hi, > The problem though is that while the RPM is correctly packaged without > the ROMS, the srpm has them in. Is this because the RPM is built from > the tarball in rpmbuild/SOURCES and the srpm from the website? D'oh! Packaged the wrong bloody thing! srpm being uploaded now http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/emulation/downloads/fuse-0.7.0-3.src.rpm TTFN Paul -- "A lot of football success is in the mind. You must believe you are the best and then make sure that you are. In my time at Liverpool we always said we had the best two teams on Merseyside, Liverpool and Liverpool Reserves." - Bill Shankly From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 00:43:33 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:43:33 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167481] New: Review Request: jogl Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167481 Summary: Review Request: jogl Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All URL: https://jogl.dev.java.net/ OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: gdk at redhat.com ReportedBy: green at redhat.com QAContact: dkl at redhat.com CC: fedora-extras-list at redhat.com Spec Name or Url: http://spindazzle.org/FE/devel/jogl.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://spindazzle.org/FE/devel/jogl-1.1.1-1.src.rpm Description: Java bindings for the OpenGL API -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 00:43:40 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:43:40 -0400 Subject: [Bug 163776] Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509030043.j830heki008266@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed Alias: FE-NEW https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=163776 green at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |167481 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 00:47:01 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:47:01 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167482] New: Review Request: jogl Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167482 Summary: Review Request: jogl Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All URL: https://jogl.dev.java.net/ OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: gdk at redhat.com ReportedBy: green at redhat.com QAContact: dkl at redhat.com CC: fedora-extras-list at redhat.com Spec Name or Url: http://spindazzle.org/FE/devel/jogl.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://spindazzle.org/FE/devel/jogl-1.1.1-1.src.rpm Description: Java bindings for the OpenGL API The JOGL Project hosts a reference implementation of the Java bindings for OpenGL API, and is designed to provide hardware-supported 3D graphics to applications written in the Java programming language. Is is part of a suite of open-source technologies initiated bu the Game Technology Group at Sun Microsystems. JOGL provides full access to the APIs in the OpenGL 1.5 specification as well as nearly all vendor extensions, and integrated with the AWT and Swing widget sets. This package includes both jar files and native (gcj) code. It will work with both the gcj and Sun VM alternatives. See http://fitzsim.org/blog/?p=7 for some detail. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 00:47:18 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:47:18 -0400 Subject: [Bug 163776] Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509030047.j830lIYN008539@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed Alias: FE-NEW https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=163776 green at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |167482 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 00:58:53 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:58:53 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167481] Review Request: jogl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509030058.j830wrTI009157@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jogl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167481 green at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE ------- Additional Comments From green at redhat.com 2005-09-02 20:58 EST ------- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 167482 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 00:59:05 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:59:05 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167482] Review Request: jogl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509030059.j830x5np009215@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jogl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167482 ------- Additional Comments From green at redhat.com 2005-09-02 20:58 EST ------- *** Bug 167481 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 01:16:40 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 21:16:40 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167258] Review Request: up-imapproxy: University of Pittsburgh IMAP Proxy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509030116.j831GeoS010364@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: up-imapproxy: University of Pittsburgh IMAP Proxy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167258 ------- Additional Comments From jeff at ultimateevil.org 2005-09-02 21:16 EST ------- (In reply to comment #9) (Paul) > I think this package should be reviewed by someone that actively uses IMAP, > which rules out me... Perhaps someone who also uses SquirrelMail would be ideal. (In reply to comment #10) (Rex) > In the specfile, when using the 'install' command, I'd suggest using the -p > option to preserve time stamps. Preserving the time stamp of a binary which was just now compiled doesn't seem to matter. Also that of the config file which will be edited before the program is used also seems unnecessary. That just leaves the init script, which I could do post CVS import. Tom, are you going to be the one to approve this one like last time? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 01:59:00 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 21:59:00 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166205] Review Request: alleyoop : Graphical front-end to the Valgrind memory checker for x86 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509030159.j831x0uu013443@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: alleyoop : Graphical front-end to the Valgrind memory checker for x86 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166205 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2005-09-02 21:58 EST ------- * Fails with a different syntax error for me (rawhide): $ alleyoop valgrind: Bad option '--leak-check=false'; aborting. valgrind: Use --help for more information. $ rpm -q alleyoop valgrind fedora-release alleyoop-0.9.0-3 valgrind-3.0.0-3 * In a moment of distraction, I made the mistake to click "Open", then selected /bin/bash (also the small /bin/unlink to reproduce), and the gui became unresponsive, with strace showing what looked like an endless loop (polling fds). I know "Open" is supposed to load log files, _but_... * I also noted that once I entered something into the "Run" dialog, it is impossible to choose a different program without leaving/re-starting alleyoop first, since clicking "Run" just re-processes the old program. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 05:01:21 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 01:01:21 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167252] Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509030501.j8351LR8023549@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167252 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2005-09-03 01:01 EST ------- (In reply to comment #13) > Regarding importing the keys: any build that alters the system outside of the > build dirs is IMO simply unacceptable. Why? To me, such a restriction is unnecessarily strict. Remember, we are talking about running testsuites. It's a charakteristic of testsuites that they interact with a system. > If you want to move the test suite, moving it to the end of %install section > would also be possible (and IMO better than %build, but even better would be > to just disable the signature test and be done with it). IMO, neither moving tests to %build or %install are acceptable. "tests are tests" and therefore must go to %check and nowhere else. If rpm disturbs Module::Signature, this is definitely is a bug in rpm we currently can't avoid having to work around inside of the SPECS, before it's fixed inside of rpm. Or to put it a bit more verbose: rpm, must not generate arbitrary files inside of the build directory, because they will always conflict somewhere. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 05:40:53 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 01:40:53 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166960] Review Request: Fuse (and associated libraries) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509030540.j835eriq026202@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Fuse (and associated libraries) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166960 ------- Additional Comments From fedora at leemhuis.info 2005-09-03 01:40 EST ------- I'm just wondering: Not that we name fuse-utils fuse-emulator-utils shouldn't we name the core package fuse-emulator? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From jpmahowald at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 05:49:54 2005 From: jpmahowald at gmail.com (John Mahowald) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 00:49:54 -0500 Subject: smeg, pyxdg, and numlockx not appearing in Bugzilla but in owners.list? In-Reply-To: References: <3ea99754050901195649bd4914@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3ea99754050902224955149fdd@mail.gmail.com> On 9/1/05, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote: > > Is "jpmahowald at gmail.com" your Bugzilla e-mail address? > Yes it is, the very address I am using now. From bugs.michael at gmx.net Sat Sep 3 08:10:49 2005 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 10:10:49 +0200 Subject: rpms/freeciv/FC-4 .cvsignore, 1.7, 1.8 freeciv.spec, 1.12, 1.13 sources, 1.7, 1.8 In-Reply-To: <200509021436.j82EaoKc021726@cvs-int.fedora.redhat.com> References: <200509021436.j82EaoKc021726@cvs-int.fedora.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20050903101049.5a2a334a.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 10:36:50 -0400, Brian Pepple wrote: > Author: bpepple > > Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/freeciv/FC-4 > - Enable debug info. > %build > -%configure --enable-debug=no \ > - --enable-client=gtk2 > +%configure --enable-client=gtk2 As flags like that often don't just add -g, but also set -Dfoo flags for enabling stderr/stdout debug output, that may have unwanted side-effects. I haven't checked whether this applies to freeciv. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 08:36:12 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 04:36:12 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167252] Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509030836.j838aC3c009465@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167252 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2005-09-03 04:36 EST ------- (In reply to comment #14) > Why? To me, such a restriction is unnecessarily strict. Common sense. > Or to put it a bit more verbose: rpm, must not generate arbitrary files inside > of the build directory, because they will always conflict somewhere. Uh, so you would be willing to allow a build to trash the system outside of the build dirs, but not inside them? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 08:51:59 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 04:51:59 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166426] Review Request: grhino - Othello/Reversi game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509030851.j838pxP0011689@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: grhino - Othello/Reversi game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166426 gauret at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From gauret at free.fr 2005-09-03 04:51 EST ------- Passed: * RPM name is OK * Source grhino-0.15.0.tar.gz is the same as upstream * Builds fine in mock * rpmlint of grhino looks OK * File list of grhino looks OK * Seems to work fine -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 09:42:30 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 05:42:30 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167252] Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509030942.j839gUIU018061@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167252 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2005-09-03 05:42 EST ------- (Forgot to note that trashing the build dirs isn't nice either, but I don't see what's arbitrary with find-debuginfo.sh always creating two files, debugfiles.list and debugsources.list.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugs.michael at gmx.net Sat Sep 3 10:03:17 2005 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 12:03:17 +0200 Subject: smeg, pyxdg, and numlockx not appearing in Bugzilla but in owners.list? In-Reply-To: <3ea99754050902224955149fdd@mail.gmail.com> References: <3ea99754050901195649bd4914@mail.gmail.com> <3ea99754050902224955149fdd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050903120317.210c8c7f.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 00:49:54 -0500, John Mahowald wrote: > On 9/1/05, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote: > > > > Is "jpmahowald at gmail.com" your Bugzilla e-mail address? > > > Yes it is, the very address I am using now. Perhaps the reason is that you added Cc to foolish AT fedoraforum?org while his bugzilla address is foolish AT guezz?net From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 11:34:18 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 07:34:18 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166087] Review Request: quarry - A multi-purpose board game GUI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509031134.j83BYIQh030866@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: quarry - A multi-purpose board game GUI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166087 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2005-09-03 07:34 EST ------- With regard to the trademark, where is the sense in mentioning Othello when apparently you could never use that trademark for an implementation of the game based on this GUI framework without licencing the name Othello? E.g. see http://www.atmedia.net/TWWWEP/noothello.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 12:04:15 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 08:04:15 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167252] Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509031204.j83C4FPj002085@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-WikiFormat - Translate Wiki formatted text into other formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167252 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2005-09-03 08:04 EST ------- (In reply to comment #15) > (In reply to comment #14) > > Why? To me, such a restriction is unnecessarily strict. > > Common sense. Naive wishful thinking - Many tools generate files outside of buildtree. The most popular one of these is called gcc another one is called autoconf. > > Or to put it a bit more verbose: rpm, must not generate arbitrary files > inside > > of the build directory, because they will always conflict somewhere. > > Uh, so you would be willing to allow a build to trash the system outside of > the build dirs, but not inside them? You are missing the point: I would allow the tool to be build to perform its nominal operation, but I am not allowing to tool being used during building interfer with the tool to be build. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 13:30:13 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 09:30:13 -0400 Subject: [Bug 165963] Review Request: libnet. Packet construction and injection library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509031330.j83DUDUP010249@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libnet. Packet construction and injection library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165963 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2005-09-03 09:30 EST ------- updated libnet10 packages been done for: devel, FC-4, FC-3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk Sat Sep 3 14:56:33 2005 From: paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk (Paul) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 15:56:33 +0100 Subject: Cinerella - would it violate the rules Message-ID: <1125759393.4165.5.camel@localhost> Hi, I'm in two minds about packaging Cinerella. Despite the code being GPL, it does have the ability to edit mpegs which may cause problems, but (and unlike Audacity) without the ability to edit mpegs, it loses a large chunk of it's functionality. Can someone offer guidance on this? I think I know the answer to this already and it is why the likes of kino is in freshrpms. TTFN Paul -- "A lot of football success is in the mind. You must believe you are the best and then make sure that you are. In my time at Liverpool we always said we had the best two teams on Merseyside, Liverpool and Liverpool Reserves." - Bill Shankly -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 15:30:19 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 11:30:19 -0400 Subject: [Bug 165963] Review Request: libnet. Packet construction and injection library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509031530.j83FUJ8K019870@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libnet. Packet construction and injection library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165963 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2005-09-03 11:30 EST ------- Can I import and build libnet now? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 16:13:04 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 12:13:04 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167258] Review Request: up-imapproxy: University of Pittsburgh IMAP Proxy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509031613.j83GD4np022915@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: up-imapproxy: University of Pittsburgh IMAP Proxy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167258 ------- Additional Comments From toshio at tiki-lounge.com 2005-09-03 12:12 EST ------- I can see the logic of the binary. The config file should have timestamp preserved, though. That way the base config file will have the same timestamp when the package is upgraded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 18:17:28 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 14:17:28 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166414] Review Request: grace (Numerical Data Processing and Visualization Tool) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509031817.j83IHShr032379@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: grace (Numerical Data Processing and Visualization Tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166414 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus at free.fr ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2005-09-03 14:17 EST ------- Some remarks/suggestions * convcal.c is not an example file but a source file so it seems better not to package it * the library is LGPL and not GPL * Xbae has a BSD licence that should be included * man pages are duplicated in doc directory and at their normal place * doc/ and examples/ are better in %doc than in /usr/share/grace * the path to fdf2fit in gracerc seems wrong to me, it should be in bin/ not in auxiliary/ * I think it is better to add the netcdf directory --with-extra-ldpath than to hardcode the netcdf library, such that if the netcdf library is turned into a dynamic library things will still be right. I attach a diff for the spec file implementing thoses suggestions, and a patch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From jpmahowald at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 18:43:40 2005 From: jpmahowald at gmail.com (John Mahowald) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 13:43:40 -0500 Subject: smeg, pyxdg, and numlockx not appearing in Bugzilla but in owners.list? In-Reply-To: <20050903120317.210c8c7f.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <3ea99754050901195649bd4914@mail.gmail.com> <3ea99754050902224955149fdd@mail.gmail.com> <20050903120317.210c8c7f.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <3ea99754050903114318e3dca7@mail.gmail.com> On 9/3/05, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > Perhaps the reason is that you added Cc to foolish AT fedoraforum?org > while his bugzilla address is foolish AT guezz?net > > That's what I get for going by the signature in the changelog. numlockx has no CC though. And the mail fix did not make them show up right away. I don't know why this isn't working. From nman64 at n-man.com Sat Sep 3 19:10:11 2005 From: nman64 at n-man.com (Patrick Barnes) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 14:10:11 -0500 Subject: Cinerella - would it violate the rules In-Reply-To: <1125759393.4165.5.camel@localhost> References: <1125759393.4165.5.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <4319F513.4010207@n-man.com> Paul wrote: >Hi, > >I'm in two minds about packaging Cinerella. Despite the code being GPL, >it does have the ability to edit mpegs which may cause problems, but >(and unlike Audacity) without the ability to edit mpegs, it loses a >large chunk of it's functionality. > >Can someone offer guidance on this? I think I know the answer to this >already and it is why the likes of kino is in freshrpms. > >TTFN > >Paul > > You do indeed already know the answer. MPEG is a patented format. Sorry. -- Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes nman64 at n-man.com www.n-man.com -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 19:29:02 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 15:29:02 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167482] Review Request: jogl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509031929.j83JT2MB004110@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jogl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167482 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wtogami at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2005-09-03 15:28 EST ------- Why did you import the package into CVS without anybody else reviewing your package? The rules exist for a reason and apply to everyone now. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/NewPackageProcess Please review the Extras package process -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 19:39:32 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 15:39:32 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166354] Review Request: nautilus-search-tool: A nautilus's extension to have "search files" on popup menu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509031939.j83JdWHd005020@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nautilus-search-tool: A nautilus's extension to have "search files" on popup menu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166354 adrian at lisas.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|gdk at redhat.com |adrian at lisas.de OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From adrian at lisas.de 2005-09-03 15:39 EST ------- You need to add COPYING to %doc and could add AUTHORS to %doc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 19:48:19 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 15:48:19 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167482] Review Request: jogl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509031948.j83JmJeE005917@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jogl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167482 ------- Additional Comments From green at redhat.com 2005-09-03 15:48 EST ------- Ok, my bad. Sorry. It's a bit confusing. At first somebody told me to apply for CVS access. I was granted access yesterday, and then was pointed at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors Which says post your first SRPM and then apply for access. But I've already been given access so I thought I could skip to step 11. So, should I remove it now (although I don't know how)? Or maybe somebody can review it quickly? Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 20:05:23 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 16:05:23 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167482] Review Request: jogl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509032005.j83K5N3G007740@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jogl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167482 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2005-09-03 16:05 EST ------- You can remove the "Epoch: 0" from FC3+ packages, and also the "0:" in the versioned dependency. Epoch in versioned dependencies are needed in cases however where the epoch is greater than zero. %ghost %doc %{_javadocdir}/%{name} What is the purpose of this? This looks extremely odd. I didn't test a build yet and I don't know java packaging too well, so hopefully we can get more input from someone else. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 20:17:51 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 16:17:51 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166414] Review Request: grace (Numerical Data Processing and Visualization Tool) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509032017.j83KHpPA008675@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: grace (Numerical Data Processing and Visualization Tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166414 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2005-09-03 16:17 EST ------- There is no licence information for cephes and on the website it doesn't seems to be free software. However the debian maintainer contacted the author who accepted to relicence the code for the projects. So I propose to include the two files I attach in the srpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 20:32:25 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 16:32:25 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167482] Review Request: jogl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509032032.j83KWPSr010143@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jogl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167482 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO_REPORTER ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2005-09-03 16:32 EST ------- + cd make + ant -Duser.home=/home/builder/rpmbuild/SOURCES linux javadoc.dev.x11 /usr/bin/build-classpath: error: could not find jaxp_parser_impl Java extension for this JVM /usr/bin/build-classpath: error: All specified jars were not found Buildfile: build.xml I noticed this error when building other java things like bootchart. It doesn't seem to be fatal to the build process. Do we have any package that contains this, and what does it do, and why doesn't the build fail? Should it become a BuildRequires? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 20:36:58 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 16:36:58 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167511] New: Review Request: perl-Apache-Session Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167511 Summary: Review Request: perl-Apache-Session Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Apache-Session/ OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: gdk at redhat.com ReportedBy: steve at silug.org QAContact: dkl at redhat.com CC: fedora-extras-list at redhat.com Spec Name or Url: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Apache-Session/perl-Apache-Session.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Apache-Session-1.6-1.src.rpm Description: These modules provide persistent storage for arbitrary data, in arbitrary backing stores. The details of interacting with the backing store are abstracted to make all backing stores behave alike. The programmer simply interacts with a tied hash. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 20:37:11 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 16:37:11 -0400 Subject: [Bug 163776] Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509032037.j83KbB8W010763@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed Alias: FE-NEW https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=163776 steve at silug.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |167511 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 20:51:27 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 16:51:27 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167512] New: Review Request: perl-Algorithm-Diff Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167512 Summary: Review Request: perl-Algorithm-Diff Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Algorithm-Diff/ OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: gdk at redhat.com ReportedBy: steve at silug.org QAContact: dkl at redhat.com CC: fedora-extras-list at redhat.com Spec Name or Url: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Algorithm-Diff/perl-Algorithm-Diff.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Algorithm-Diff-1.15-2.src.rpm Description: This is a module for computing the difference between two files, two strings, or any other two lists of things. It uses an intelligent algorithm similar to (or identical to) the one used by the Unix `diff' program. It is guaranteed to find the *smallest possible* set of differences. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 20:51:44 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 16:51:44 -0400 Subject: [Bug 163776] Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509032051.j83KpiFk012236@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed Alias: FE-NEW https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=163776 steve at silug.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |167512 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 20:54:01 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 16:54:01 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167482] Review Request: jogl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509032054.j83Ks173012459@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jogl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167482 green at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED CC| |fitzsim at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From green at redhat.com 2005-09-03 16:53 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > You can remove the "Epoch: 0" from FC3+ packages, and also the "0:" in the > versioned dependency. Epoch in versioned dependencies are needed in cases > however where the epoch is greater than zero. Ok. I was just following the practice established in all of the FC java packges. > %ghost %doc %{_javadocdir}/%{name} > What is the purpose of this? This looks extremely odd. To be honest, I'm not sure. It's just established practice for FC java packages. > I didn't test a build yet and I don't know java packaging too well, so hopefully > we can get more input from someone else. I'll add fitzsim to CC. I hope he doesn't mind :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 20:58:52 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 16:58:52 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167482] Review Request: jogl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509032058.j83KwquW012974@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jogl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167482 ------- Additional Comments From green at redhat.com 2005-09-03 16:58 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > + cd make > + ant -Duser.home=/home/builder/rpmbuild/SOURCES linux javadoc.dev.x11 > /usr/bin/build-classpath: error: could not find jaxp_parser_impl Java extension > for this JVM > /usr/bin/build-classpath: error: All specified jars were not found > Buildfile: build.xml > > I noticed this error when building other java things like bootchart. It doesn't > seem to be fatal to the build process. Do we have any package that contains > this, and what does it do, and why doesn't the build fail? Should it become a > BuildRequires? ant is generating this error. jaxp_parser_impl is managed by alternatives and provided by multiple packages, including java-1.4.2-gcj-compat and xerces-j2. I don't understand why it's not set up properly in this build environment. The reason the build doesn't fail is because libgcj.jar contains all of the classes provided by jaxp_parser_impl. java-1.4.2-gcj-compat simply symlinks jaxp_parser_impl.jar to libgcj.jar. Perhaps the build would fail if you tried building using the Sun VM alternative. I'm hoping fitzsim has some insight into why the jamp_parser_impl alternative is broken. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 21:13:07 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 17:13:07 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166542] Review Request: mod_auth_pam: PAM authentication module for Apache In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509032113.j83LD7I4014213@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mod_auth_pam: PAM authentication module for Apache https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166542 ------- Additional Comments From ivazquez at ivazquez.net 2005-09-03 17:12 EST ------- Updated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 21:24:46 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 17:24:46 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167482] Review Request: jogl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509032124.j83LOk8x015021@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jogl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167482 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2005-09-03 17:24 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #4) > > > %ghost %doc %{_javadocdir}/%{name} > > What is the purpose of this? This looks extremely odd. > > To be honest, I'm not sure. It's just established practice for FC java > packages. The original intention in JPackage (where the practice was inherited from) was to be able to install multiple versions of javadocs for a package in parallel, and to have an unversioned symlink pointing at the last installed version. However, there are several major flaws with the current JPackage (and FC, and the one in this package) implementation, to name a few: - It doesn't work. The symlinks cause a rpm conflict between different versions of the javadoc packages, even when %ghost'd. - It requires write access to %{_javadocdir} in %post and expects to succeed -> breaks in %{_netsharedpath} setups where /usr/share is (NFS) mounted read only. - The idea of "last version installed" is not very good in the first place. "Newest" could be slightly more useful. However, the unversioned %{_javadocdir}/%{name} is very useful eg. for javadoc crosslinking between packages as well as bookmarking, IDE config etc. For now, I'd suggest packaging %{_javadocdir}/%{name} as usual (not %ghost), and removing the %post javadoc scriptlet altogether. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 21:27:47 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 17:27:47 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166354] Review Request: nautilus-search-tool: A nautilus's extension to have "search files" on popup menu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509032127.j83LRlqF015233@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nautilus-search-tool: A nautilus's extension to have "search files" on popup menu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166354 ------- Additional Comments From ivazquez at ivazquez.net 2005-09-03 17:27 EST ------- Updated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 22:18:53 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 18:18:53 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167482] Review Request: jogl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509032218.j83MIrcK019316@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jogl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167482 ------- Additional Comments From green at redhat.com 2005-09-03 18:18 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8) > For now, I'd suggest packaging %{_javadocdir}/%{name} as usual (not %ghost), > and removing the %post javadoc scriptlet altogether. Ok, done. I've placed a revised spec file and srpm here: http://spindazzle.org/FE/devel -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 22:22:24 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 18:22:24 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167482] Review Request: jogl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509032222.j83MMO5S019559@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jogl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167482 ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2005-09-03 18:22 EST ------- Looks good enough, go ahead and import the changes. Don't forget to add %{?dist} after the number in the Release tag before you request another build. Do you want this in FE4 too? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 23:35:25 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 19:35:25 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167482] Review Request: jogl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509032335.j83NZPoC024264@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jogl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167482 green at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From green at redhat.com 2005-09-03 19:35 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10) > Looks good enough, go ahead and import the changes. Don't forget to add > %{?dist} after the number in the Release tag before you request another build. Thanks! Done. > Do you want this in FE4 too? No, FE5 is fine for now. Thanks again. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Sep 3 23:57:29 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 19:57:29 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167258] Review Request: up-imapproxy: University of Pittsburgh IMAP Proxy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509032357.j83NvTKC025383@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: up-imapproxy: University of Pittsburgh IMAP Proxy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167258 ------- Additional Comments From jeff at ultimateevil.org 2005-09-03 19:57 EST ------- (In reply to comment #12) (Toshio) > I can see the logic of the binary. The config file should have timestamp > preserved, though. That way the base config file will have the same timestamp > when the package is upgraded. Ok, I have added -p to install on the conf and init files. New package built. http://www.ultimateevil.org/~jeff/Fedora/up-imapproxy-1.2.3-5.src.rpm http://www.ultimateevil.org/~jeff/Fedora/up-imapproxy.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Sep 4 02:08:42 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 22:08:42 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167525] New: Review Request: cpptasks Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167525 Summary: Review Request: cpptasks Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All URL: http://ant-contrib.sourceforge.net/cc.html OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: gdk at redhat.com ReportedBy: green at redhat.com QAContact: dkl at redhat.com CC: fedora-extras-list at redhat.com Spec Name or Url: http://spindazzle.org/FE/devel/cpptasks.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://spindazzle.org/FE/devel/cpptasks-1.0-0.b3.2jpp_1.src.rpm Description: This Ant task can compile various source languages and produce executables, shared libraries (aka DLL's) and static libraries. Compiler adaptors are currently available for several C/C++ compilers, FORTRAN, MIDL and Windows Resource files. This is taken from jpackage.org, and slightly modified based on my jogl spec file review experience. I've left this as a noarch RPM for now, since it's not speed-critical and will only ever show up in a BuildRequires. The upstream jogl source distribution includes a bundled cpptasks jar file (needed at build-time only). I just realized that my jogl package should be using a cpptasks built from source, not the bundled .jar file. Once this is approved for FE, I will check in my jogl changes to strip out the bundled cpptasks and use this one instead. Thanks, AG -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Sep 4 02:08:52 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 22:08:52 -0400 Subject: [Bug 163776] Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509040208.j8428qZY030990@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed Alias: FE-NEW https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=163776 green at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |167525 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Sep 4 02:14:54 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 22:14:54 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167526] New: Review Request: scim-tomoe Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167526 Summary: Review Request: scim-tomoe Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All URL: http://sourceforge.jp/projects/scim-imengine/ OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: gdk at redhat.com ReportedBy: ryo-dairiki at users.sourceforge.net QAContact: dkl at redhat.com CC: fedora-extras-list at redhat.com Spec Name or Url: http://proxy.f2.ymdb.yahoofs.jp/users/d1e4801f/bc/tomoe/scim-tomoe.spec?bcERQkDBnn6Oyvmb SRPM Name or Url: http://proxy.f2.ymdb.yahoofs.jp/users/d1e4801f/bc/tomoe/scim-tomoe-0.1.0-1.src.rpm?bcERQkDBwfvTiKbN Description: Scim-tomoe allows Japanese handwritten input of characters using SCIM. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Sep 4 02:15:06 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 22:15:06 -0400 Subject: [Bug 163776] Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509040215.j842F6e1031409@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Tracker: New Extras packages to be reviewed Alias: FE-NEW https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=163776 ryo-dairiki at users.sourceforge.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |167526 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From buildsys at fedoraproject.org Sun Sep 4 02:35:31 2005 From: buildsys at fedoraproject.org (buildsys at fedoraproject.org) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 22:35:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fedora Extras 3 Package Build Report Message-ID: <20050904023531.70C958030@extras64.linux.duke.edu> Packages built and released for Fedora Extras 3: 2 grhino-0.15.0-2.fc3 libnet10-1.0.2a-8.fc3 For more information about the built packages please see the repository or the fedora Info Feed: http://fedoraproject.org/infofeed/ From buildsys at fedoraproject.org Sun Sep 4 02:36:16 2005 From: buildsys at fedoraproject.org (buildsys at fedoraproject.org) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 22:36:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fedora Extras 4 Package Build Report Message-ID: <20050904023616.4505F8031@extras64.linux.duke.edu> Packages built and released for Fedora Extras 4: 3 gajim-0.8.1-1.fc4 libnet10-1.0.2a-8.fc4 perl-Jcode-2.03-1.fc4 For more information about the built packages please see the repository or the fedora Info Feed: http://fedoraproject.org/infofeed/ From buildsys at fedoraproject.org Sun Sep 4 02:37:01 2005 From: buildsys at fedoraproject.org (buildsys at fedoraproject.org) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 22:37:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fedora Extras development Package Build Report Message-ID: <20050904023701.D05458030@extras64.linux.duke.edu> Packages built and released for Fedora Extras development: 13 abiword-2.3.5-3 gajim-0.8.1-1.fc5 icu-3.4-3.fc5 jogl-1.1.1-6 jogl-1.1.1-8.fc5 libnet10-1.0.2a-8.fc5 mail-notification-2.0-3.fc5 nexuiz-1.2-2.fc5 nexuiz-data-1.2-2 perl-Jcode-2.03-1.fc5 pexpect-0.99999b-1.fc5 pexpect-0.99999b-2.fc5 yumex-0.42-4.0.fc5 For more information about the built packages please see the repository or the fedora Info Feed: http://fedoraproject.org/infofeed/ From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Sep 4 04:04:47 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 00:04:47 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167526] Review Request: scim-tomoe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509040404.j8444l2h004737@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: scim-tomoe https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167526 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |wtogami at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2005-09-04 00:04 EST ------- APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Sep 4 04:07:16 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 00:07:16 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167260] Review Request: tomoe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509040407.j8447GbL004973@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tomoe https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167260 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |wtogami at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2005-09-04 00:07 EST ------- APPROVED after you apply this patch. Go ahead and import. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From dwmw2 at infradead.org Sun Sep 4 07:43:20 2005 From: dwmw2 at infradead.org (David Woodhouse) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 08:43:20 +0100 Subject: How to package kernel module In-Reply-To: <20050902062534.GZ1559@stingr.net> References: <20050901203354.GX1559@stingr.net> <1125607520.2896.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050902062534.GZ1559@stingr.net> Message-ID: <1125819800.6146.22.camel@baythorne.infradead.org> On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 10:25 +0400, Paul P Komkoff Jr wrote: > Asterisk is a hot topic right now. I, personally, trying to build some > medium-sized applications with it, but some people might want to use > it as their little in-house PBX (especially after switching all > long-distance over to VoIP in north america). Audience is growing, and > they are forced to use something like AstLinux or any another distro > with precompiled/prepackaged stuff. Personally I'd build Asterisk in such a way that it doesn't require the zaptel stuff. You can ship the zap channel driver in a subpackage -- and likewise chan_misdn. The timing bits it uses zaptel for can be done with POSIX timers. -- dwmw2 From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Sep 4 09:51:18 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 05:51:18 -0400 Subject: [Bug 167405] Review Request: perl-Hook-LexWrap - Lexically scoped subroutine wrappers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509040951.j849pIqd007679@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Hook-LexWrap - Lexically scoped subroutine wrappers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167405 rc040203 at freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|rc040203 at freenet.de |paul at city-fan.org OtherBugsDependingO|163779 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2005-09-04 05:51 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Package still has redundant BR: perl and does not include text of either GPL or > Artistic license I read this as a formal veto. Therefore, I am assigning the package to Paul, and push it back to FE-REVIEW. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Sep 4 10:02:43 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 06:02:43 -0400 Subject: [Bug 166542] Review Request: mod_auth_pam: PAM authentication module for Apache In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509041002.j84A2hf8008635@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mod_auth_pam: PAM authentication module for Apache https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166542 ------- Additional Comments From gauret at free.fr 2005-09-04 06:02 EST ------- The requires httpd-mmn lines stills kills mock. In the file root.log: /sbin/runuser -c 'rpm -Uvh --nodeps /builddir/build/originals/mod_auth_pam-1.1.1-1.src.rpm' mockbuild mod_auth_pam warning: user ignacio does not exist - using root warning: group ignacio does not exist - using root [...] warning: group ignacio does not exist - using root ####### error: line 16: Version required: Requires: httpd-mmn = The reason is that when mock installs the srpm, httpd is not yet installed, but the spec file is parsed. You have to add some kind of "|| true" parachute to the line, as done in the php package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Sep 4 11:45:58 2005 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 07:45:58 -0400 Subject: [Bug 165329] Review Request: roundup-0.8.4-3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509041145.j84Bjwm8020106@www.beta.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: roundup-0.8.4-3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165329 gauret at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|gdk at redhat.com |gauret at free.fr OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From gauret at free.fr 2005-09-04 07:45 EST ------- * The summary is too long, please change it to "Simple and flexible issue-tracking system" * The roundup service is enabled by default. We usually don't do that with network-listening daemons, please change the "345" to "-" at the top of the init script. * man pages are placed in /usr/man instead of /usr/share/man * The lang file are not tagged properly, please use the %{find_lang} macro (those two points will prevent from using INSTALLED_FILES, sorry...) * the package should contain the text of the license (COPYING.txt) * %{_initrddir}/roundup should be tagged as %config(noreplace) because of the port setting * you could support condrestart in scriptlets: %post if [ "$1" -ge "1" ]; then /sbin/service